Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Frederick Arthur Cobb, esquire, Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Slaughterhouses (Humane Killer)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Food if he will arrange that animals dealt with in Government slaughterhouses are invariably despatched by the humane killer.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): Existing instructions already provide for the stunning before slaughter in Government slaughterhouses of all cattle, calves, sheep and pigs except those killed by the Jewish and Mohammedan methods.

I am not prepared to prohibit these methods because to do so would stop meat reaching orthodox Jews and Mohammedans.

Brigadier Rayner: Now that he has taken over this Department will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to interest himself in this question of humane killing? Does he realise that many of the abattoirs in this country are an absolute disgrace? Will he do his best to see that the unnecessary suffering and terror of these animals is brought to an end?

Mr. Webb: In so far as I can help, and in so far as it is my responsibility, I shall be very happy indeed to do so, subject to the consideration I raised in the latter part of my answer.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman also arrange that those members of the Government who have expressed Communist—

Mr. Speaker: That is nothing to do with this Question.

Temporary Appointment, Birmingham

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Food in what capacity he recently employed Mr. John Albert Tempest, Livingstone Road, Perry Barr, Birmingham, and how long Mr. Tempest was employed by his Department, the salary paid, and the reason for termination of employment.

Mr. Webb: Mr. Tempest was employed as a temporary travelling accountant from September, 1945, to


February, 1950, at a salary of £590 a year. His appointment was terminated after he was convicted of certain criminal offences.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the Minister aware that Mr. Tempest has a long list of previous convictions for fraud, theft, false pretences and bigamy, including a five-year sentence of penal servitude, and will he take steps to prevent the employment of such manifestly unsuitable persons in this capacity in his Department?

Mr. Webb: I should have thought that the answer I gave would have given the hon. Member complete satisfaction.

National Egg Distributors' Association (Staff)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Food what function is currently performed by the staff of the National Egg Distributors' Association, Limited; what is the total annual cost of salaries and wages of that organisation; and whether he will make a statement in regard to future plans for collection and distribution of home-produced eggs.

Mr. Webb: Subject to my general direction, this Association is responsible for the collection and distribution of eggs from packing stations or ships, supplying boxes and packing materials, making payments to home packers, arranging transport, inspecting imported eggs and performing certain accounting duties. The total cost of salaries and wages of the staff of the organisation (including industrial staff) for the 12 months ended 31st December, 1949, was £233,708. I have not yet had time to form a view on the arrangements for the collection and distribution of home-produced eggs.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the Minister aware that these arrangements invariably result in eggs arriving at grocers' shops more than four weeks' old and generally in a musty or rotten condition? Will he take steps to investigate whether the distribution can revert to private traders and thereby ensure the arrival of fresh eggs in the shops?

Mr. Webb: In the past week or so we have given a great deal of freedom to the movement of eggs.

Fish

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Food how much fish has been used for manure and how much sold to the fish meal works since 1st September, 1949, until the latest convenient date.

Mr. Webb: From 1st September, 1949, to 28th February, 1950, 22,400 tons of white fish, of which 5,900 tons had been condemned, were sold to fish meal works, and 16,700 tons of herrings were sold for reduction to oil and meal. I have no statistics of sales for manure, but the quantities can only have been extremely small.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman not disturbed by these figures? Will he tell the House what steps he is taking with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture to stop this deplorable practice, which involves the waste of good food and the importing of foreign food?

Mr. Webb: As I told the House last week, my right hon. Friend and I are now going into the whole future of the fishing industry.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of this fish is sent to fish meal factories, because the Government have loosed stocks from cold storage?

Mr. Webb: Not without notice.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Food what steps he proposes to take to compensate Scottish fishermen for the withdrawal of the flat-rate transport scheme for fish and to make it possible for Scottish fishermen to sell their produce at a competitive price in English markets.

Mr. Webb: I met a deputation of M.P.s from the party opposite on this problem a few days ago. While I cannot postpone, for obvious reasons, the operation of the plans to free the fishing industry from control, I have given an assurance to consider their proposals for easing any adverse consequence of decontrol on their particular section of the industry. An inter-Departmental Committee is considering the whole problem and has been asked to report as quickly as possible. When it does, I and my colleagues will act as speedily as possible on their recommendation. In the


meantime, may I suggest it would be helpful if all the Members concerned in this problem acted together and put forward agreed ideas.

Mr. Stewart: May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that we do act together, but that that does not prevent us putting down individual Questions? Since the date of the ending of this scheme is now very near, will the right hon. Gentleman do everything he can to expedite the findings of the committee?

Mr. Webb: I have already given that assurance to the deputation which met me.

Mr. Stewart: asked the Minister of Food in view of the large importation of Norwegian herrings in recent weeks and the large quantities of Scottish herrings which had, in consequence, to be sold at low prices, what steps he proposes to take now, or has in contemplation to take in another year, to regulate these imports so as to prevent a recurrence of substantial losses to the home trade.

Mr. Webb: The quantity imported has been only about 50 per cent. of last year's imports and 30 per cent. of those of 1948, while British landings have increased 6 per cent. over last year. I do not think, therefore, that any action on my part is needed.

CLASSES OF INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES* ELIGIBLE FOR INDIVIDUAL WEEKLY ALLOWANCES OF RATIONED FOODS IN EXCESS OF THE ORDINARY RATION SCALES, THE CONDITIONS OF ENTITLEMENT, AND THE AMOUNT THEREOF.


Class of employee
Conditions of entitlement
Type and current amount, of special rations(s) per week


Articled seamen; fisherman and the like working under similar conditions; and workers on rock lighthouses.
continuous employment aflot or on rock lighthouses.
In lieu of the ordinary ration scale, the following:




Bacon (free of bone)
8 oz.




Cheese
…
…
4 oz.




Fats
…
…
14½ oz.




Meat
…
…
75 oz.




Milk (condensed)
1 tin




Sugar
…
…
21 oz.




Tea
…
…
4 oz.




Points
14 points




Note: The scale shown is that obtainable against coupons in Weekly Seaman's Ration Book R.B.6. Crews of vessels victullated by other means receive a comparable scale.


* Other than ocean-going seamen and marine workers.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that herrings of the highest quality and in considerable quantities were being sent to the factory in the West of Scotland on account of this great importation of Norwegian herrings, the result being that first-class Scottish produce was in that way being wasted for food consumption?

Mr. Webb: If the hon. Gentleman has any representations to make to me on this matter perhaps he will write to me or see me about them.

Rations

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Food if he will give an up-to-date list of the classes of industrial and agricultural employees who receive extra rations; and the amount of extra ration in each case.

Mr. Webb: As the list is rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Russell: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate on what principles these classes of workers are selected for extra rations?

Mr. Webb: I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would await the reply, and then, if he wishes, put down another Question.

Following is the information:

Class of employee
Conditions of entitlement
Type and current amount, of special rations(s) per week


Workers employed on marine craft in estuarial waters; fishermen and the like working under similar conditions.
Habitual employment afloat for the greater part of the time in circumstances which make impracticable the provision of normal catering facilities (afloat or ashore).
In lieu of the ordinary ration scale, the following:




Bacon (free of bone)
8 oz.




Cheese
…
…
4 oz.




Fats
…
…
14½ oz.




Meat
…
…
40 oz.




Milk (condensed)
1 tin




Sugar
…
…
16 oz.




Tea
…
…
4 oz.




Points
14 points


Coal miners
…
…
…
…
…
Employment underground
Meat 1s. 6d. (retail price) worth in addition to the ordinary ration.


Agricultural workers—all workers employed under contract of service in agriculture and horticulture including ancillary workers e.g., threshing machine workers, tractor workers, travelling blacksmiths and agricultural machinery maintenance engineers.
Employment in such circumstances that, by reason of isolation, conditions of work etc., ordinary catering facilities cannot be used and the provision of canteen or packed meal services is impracticable.
Cheese 12 ounces in lieu of the ordinary ration.


Building trade operatives in rural areas
…


Canal boatmen
…
…
…
…
…


Canal maintenance workers
…
…
…


Charcoal burners working in forests
…


Civil engineering workers in rural areas
…


Clay industry workers (including brick and tile workers).


Coal borers
…
…
…
…
…


Coal distributive workers
…
…
…


Electrical contracting workers in rural areas
…


Electrical linesmen and workers employed with them in rural areas.


Electrical sub-station staff in small isolated sub-stations.


Fishermen
…
…
…
…
…


Flour and provender mill workers in small mills in country areas.


Forestry workers, including workers at forest mills and timber workers employed in small sawmills in country districts.


Gas main layers
…
…
…


Land drainage and catchment board workers
…


Miners working underground
…
…
…


Ordnance survey field revisers
…
…


Post Office external engineering workmen
…


Quarrymen-workers in roadstone, limestone, ironstone and slate quarries.


Railway manual workers
…
…
…


Roadmen and scavengers employed by county and rural district councils.


Sand, chalk and gravel pit workers
…
…


Scale repairers—service adjusters engaged on repairs and/or contracts.


Sewage farms and works employees
…
…


Slag workers procuring slag for road construction purposes.


Surface workers at coal and ironstone mines
…


Trunk road workers (Ministry of Transport) engaged in experimental road surfacing in isolated areas.


Wagon repairers at railway and colliery sidings


Water bailiffs (permanent)
…
…
…


Waterworks undertakings-workers employed at pumping stations, nitration plants, reservoirs, etc., and on aqueducts and trunk mains.

Bulk Purchase

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement detailing the various bulk-purchase contracts entered into by his Department since 1945, with particulars of the duration of such contracts and the price-revision clauses contained therein.

Mr. Webb: With permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as it is rather long.

Mr. Driberg: Of course, I gladly give my right hon. Friend the permission he asks to save the time of the House, but

LONG TERM PURCHASE CONTRACTS MADE SINCE 1ST JANUARY, 1945


[Contracts included are those covering at least two years]


Commodity and Country
Period
Provisions for Price Review


WHEAT AND FLOUR:




Canada
…
…
1st August, 1946–31st July, 1950
…
Prices fixed for first two years; annual review for third and fourth years.


Meat:




New Zeland
…
*1st October, 1944–30th september, 1948
Annual review.





1st October, 1948–30th September, 1955
Annual review within agreed limits of variation.


Australia
…
…
*1st october, 1944–30th September, 1948 extended to 30th September, 1950
Annual review except that beef prices have been fixed for two years to 30th September, 1951. Discussions are in progress regarding future arrangements.


Argentina
…
…
*1st October, 1944–30th September, 1948 Re-negotiated in 1946 and extended to 1950.
Annual review.





1st October, 1946–30th September, 1950 Replaced by purchase under Andes Agreement in February, 1948 and subsequently by current five-year contract.
Annual review after first two years.





1st July, 1949–30th June, 1954
…
…
Annual review.


Uruguay
…
…
1st October, 1944–30th September, 1948 Re-negotiated in 1946 and extended to 1950.
Annual review.





1st October, 1946–30th September, 1950 Replaced by one year agreement in February, 1948.
Annual review after first two years.





1st July, 1949–30th June, 1954
…
…
Annual review.


Chile
…
…
*1st October, 1944–30th September, 1948
Annual review.


Brazil
…
…
*1st October, 1944–30th September, 1948
Annual review.


Paraguay
…
…
*1st October, 1944–30th September, 1948
It was agreed in 1946 that prices should be reviewed annually.


Guatemala
…
…
1st August, 1947–31st August, 1950 terminated 11th September, 1949.
Quartely review.


BACON






Denmark
…
…
1st October, 1948–30th September, 1952
Annual review within agreed limits of variation.


Holland
…
…
1st January, 1949–31st December, 1952
Annual review within agreed limits of variation.


Poland
…
…
1st January, 1949–31st December, 1953
Annual review within agreed limits of variation.


Canada
…
…
1st January, 1947–31st December, 1948



*Though running from 1st October, 1944 these contrcts were negotiated and signed after 1st January, 1945.

may I point out to him—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"] I may, on a point of Order. May I point out with respect, Mr. Speaker, that if I had not given this permission the Minister of Food would have been reading out his answer for the rest of Question Time?

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether any part of the terms of the bulk purchase contracts have been worsened for us by ill-advised Ministerial comment on the countries concerned?

Following is the statement:

Commodity and Country
Period
Provisions for Price Review


EGGS:






Australia (Eggs in shell and egg products).
1st July, 1947–30th June, 1950 Replaced in 1948 by current five year contract.
Annual review.


1st July, 1948–30th June, 1953
…
…
Annual review within agreed limits of variation.


Canada (Eggs in shell and egg products).
1st February, 1947–31st January, 1949
…
Prices subject to review at request of either contracting party in the light of any significant change in costs.


Eire (Eggs in shell)
…
1st February, 1947–31st January, 1950 Revised under Trade Agreement of 31st July, 1948.




1st February, 1948–31st January, 1951 Replaced in 1949 by current three year contract.




1st February, 1949–31st January, 1952
Prices agreed for first two years; prices for third year to be agreed.


Holland (Eggs in shell).
14th February, 1949–31st January, 1952 extended to 31st January, 1953.
Annual review.


Denmark (Eggs in shell).
1st October, 1947–30th September, 1950 extended to 30th September, 1951.
Annual review.


Poland (Eggs in shell)
1st March, 1949–31st January, 1954
…
Annual review.


Poland (Egg products).
1st March, 1949–31st January, 1954
…
Prices agreed for first two years; thereafter, annual review.


MILK PRODUCTS:






*Australia (Butter and Cheese).
1st July, 1948–30th June, 1955
…
…
Annual review within agreed limits of variation.


*New Zealand (Butter and Cheese).
1st August, 1948–31st July, 1955
…
Annual review within agreed limits of variation.


New Zealand (Evaporated Milk).
1st August, 1944–31st July, 1948 Originally extended to 31st July, 1950 but replaced by current three year contract.
Annual review after first two years.



1st August, 1949–31st July, 1952
…
Annual review.


New Zealand (Milk Powder).
1st August, 1944–31st July, 1948 Originally extended to 31st July, 1950 but replaced by current six year contract.
Annual review after first two years.



1st August, 1949–31st July, 1955
…
Annual review within agreed limits of variation.


Denmark (Butter)
…
1st October, 1949–30th September, 1955
Annual review within agreed limits of variation.


SUGAR:




Australia
…
…
1st January, 1948–31st December, 1952
Annual review.


South Africa
…


British West Indies
…


British Guiana
…


Fiji
…
…
…


British East Africa
…


Mauritius
…
…


OILS AND FATS:






Ceylon (Copra and Coconut Oil).
1st January, 1946–31st December, 1950 Replaced in 1948 by current contract.




1st July, 1948–31st December, 1950
…
Price for 1950 to be negotiated within agreed limits.


Zanzibar (Copra and Coconut Oil).
1st January, 1949–31st December, 1951
Annual review with an agreed floor price.


Malaya (Palm Oil)
…
1st July, 1946–31st December, 1950 Replaced by current contract.
Annual review.



1st January, 1950–31st December, 1952
Annual review.


Fiji (Copra and Coconut Oil).
1st January, 1949–31st December, 1957
Annual review within agreed limits of variation.


Seychelles (Copra)
1st January, 1949–31st December, 1951 (Now lapsed).
Annual review subject to an agreed floor price.


Malaya (Copra)
…
1st July, 1949–30th June, 1953
…
…
Annual review within agreed limits of variation.


* Succeeded original contracts running from 1st August, 1944 to 31st July, 1948.

Milk

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the benefit that adolescent workers would derive from an increase in their consumption of milk and milk foods; and what steps he proposes to take to take additional supplies of these foods available to them in canteens.

Mr. Webb: I do realise how good milk is for young people. My hon. Friend will know that during the years of shortage special arrangements were made for adolescents to have priority supplies of milk at home and milk cocoa during their working hours in factories and other places of business. I am very glad that at present the good supply of milk has enabled me to remove all restriction on


its sale by canteens, and I hope that young people will take full advantage of this.

Dr. Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is this class of young workers that is particularly prone to tuberculosis, and that although these foods are now very freely available there is a bar, in their cost, to their purchasing them? Will he use his influence to see that the cost to this class of workers is reduced in the factories?

Mr. Webb: Cost is another question. All I can do is to make the milk freely available, and that has been done.

Fruit Pulp

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food the arrangements that have been made for buying fruit pulp from Canada and the United States, and the quantities involved.

Mr. Webb: None, Sir.

Animal Feedingstuffs

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Food what amount of animal feedingstuffs, expressed in value and tonnage, he expects to import during the next 12 months.

Mr. Webb: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) on 23rd March.

Overseas Food Corporation (Advances)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food what sums, in addition to the £29,350,000, of which this House was informed on 7th November last, have been advanced to the Overseas Food Corporation.

Mr. Webb: Four million one hundred thousand pounds.

Mr. Hurd: Would the right hon. Gentleman split the new total between the groundnut scheme and the sorghum scheme in Queensland?

Mr. Webb: I should prefer notice of that question.

Sugar

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food why there has been a fall in the production of home grown sugar as compared with last year.

Mr. Webb: Owing to an abnormal growing season the sugar content of beet grown in 1949 was one of the lowest on record, and the yield of beet per acre was smaller than in 1948.

Mr. Harrison: Could my right hon. Friend tell us if there is any intention of increasing the acreage for home sowing, to help overcome this vast and irksome shortage in the homes?

Mr. Webb: We are governed in this matter by factory accommodation and the need to use our acres for other purposes, but I shall be quite happy to collaborate with my right hon. Friend on this problem.

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food what recent diminution of supplies of sugar from Empire and Commonwealth sources there has been; what are the reasons for this; and if he will take steps to overcome the dollar difficulties existing in the West Indies by means of barter agreements, arranging for the exchange of manufactured goods for sugar and other island products.

Mr. Webb: There has been no recent falling off in supplies of sugar from Commonwealth sources. On the contrary, Commonwealth sugar supplies have been increasing and are planned to go on increasing for some years to come. As the West Indies are in the sterling area their dollar difficulties are a part of the general dollar problem of the sterling area which we are all engaged in a common effort to remedy.

Mr. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the supply of sugar from British sources in the Carribean and British Guiana has fallen considerably, compared with the supplies of two years ago?

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food when he anticipates that the negotiations at present proceeding regarding the purchase of West Indian sugar supplies will be concluded.

Mr. Webb: I cannot say, at present.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Food how much sugar has been allocated during the past year for the manufacture of canned sweet puddings; and how this compares with the previous year.

Mr. Webb: The allocation for this purpose was 1,878 tons in 1949, against 1,494 tons in 1948—an increase, of course, of 384 tons. This included increased allocations for factories in development areas.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been an increasing tendency by his Ministry to increase the allocation of sugar for manufacturing purposes of all kinds, although the domestic ration is in danger? Is he further aware that the housewife would much rather have the sugar to make her own puddings, which are cheaper and better; and will he reverse this process?

Mr. Webb: I regard the domestic ration as the highest priority, and it figures in that category in the review that is now taking place.

Grain and Potatoes (Calorie Intake)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the total calorie intake pre-war from grain and potatoes was 34 per cent. and in 1946 was 42 per cent.; and whether he will now give the figures for 1947, 1948 and 1949.

Mr. Webb: Yes, Sir. The corresponding figures for years 1947, 1948 and 1949 are 43 per cent., 43 per cent. and 40 per cent. respectively.

Dr. Stross: With regard to the last figure given by my right hon. Friend, is my right hon. Friend aware that this shows that we are undoubtedly improving the national dietary?

Mr. Henry Strauss: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever invited a friend to a calorie intake?

Eggs

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food what offers of eggs from the Gambia, produced under the Colonial Development Corporation's Scheme, his Department has received; and what purchases it has made.

Mr. Webb: The development of this project is in an early stage and no business has yet been concluded.

Mr. Hurd: Does not the Minister think this very disappointing, as we have been running the poultry farm in the Gambia now for over 12 months? Should we not now be getting eggs?

Mr. Webb: I think a lot of things, not all of them for publication.

Mr. Vane: Could the Minister say what has been the cost of the development so far?

Mr. Webb: On cost, no. We have had four sample quantities and are considering them.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Food why he continues to spend dollars on the purchase of large quantities of dried eggs from the United States of America; and whether he will give an estimate of the date by which he anticipates that it will be possible to provide sufficient regular supplies of shell eggs in this country to meet all normal requirements.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food why a large quantity of dried egg has been or is about to be purchased from the United States of America, in view of the fact that dollars could be better spent on the purchase of stock feedingstuffs so that the eggs can be produced at home.

Mr. Webb: Some manufacturing and other trades need to have their eggs in the dried form and not in shell, and at present they are getting only half of what they had before the war. We should be unable even to maintain this rate of supply but for these American dried eggs. Last September, the United States Government agreed that part of our Canadian Wheat Purchases to the value of $175 million should be financed from E.C.A. funds; at the same time, we agreed to buy, among other things, from $8–10 million worth of United States perishable agricultural commodities. Our purchase of dried egg is part of this transaction.

Mr. Higgs: Does not the Minister think the money might have been better spent on something more tasty, or even upon timber for houses?

Mr. Webb: All I know is that the bakers and confectioners are very happy to have this dried egg.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that the bulk of this dried egg has been manufactured for some years? Is it not a further fact that it compares very unfavourably with home produced fresh eggs that give value to the people of this country? May I have an answer?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when his predecessor stopped the purchase of dried eggs he was pressed by the Opposition to resume it?

Mr. De la Bère: They are derelict stocks.

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Food what sum of money, provided out of the funds of the Economic Co-operation Administration, has been spent, or it is proposed to spend, during this year on the purchase of dried eggs from the United States.

Mr. Webb: Three million dollars.

Mr. Hollis: Is the Minister aware of the recent statement of the Minister of Agriculture, that it would be very unwise for us to become dependent on special funds for the purchase of foodstuffs? Why does not the same principle apply to eggs?

Mr. Webb: That is a question for my right hon. Friend.

Cheese and Butter

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the increased surplus of milk which is anticipated during the next few months, he will give details of the steps which he proposes to take to increase the local production of butter and cheese by dairy farmers.

Mr. Webb: I have already arranged for farmhouse cheesemakers to make contracts for 12 months if they wish, instead of for limited periods. This is to give continuous employment to their staff and a regular supply of whey for pig feeding. No special arrangements have been made to increase farm butter making, because farm butter cannot be distributed on the ration.

Meat

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware

of complaints from Cardiff butchers concerning the quantity of low grade meat allocated to them for distribution; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Minister of Food what action he proposes to take to allay the discontent caused in the Dover area by the indifferent quality of meat being made available to the butchers.

Mr. Webb: The proportion of home-killed and imported meat issued in Cardiff and in Dover recently compares quite well with the proportion in the rest of the south-western and south-eastern areas respectively. But I have asked for a special report in both cases, and will write to both the hon. Gentlemen as soon as I have considered it.

Flour (Extraction Rate)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Food if we will now consider reducing the extraction of flour from wheat in order to increase the whiteness of the flour, to produce more cattle provender and thus to save dollars and also release the ships now being used as granaries so that they can perform the task for which they were constructed.

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now revise milling percentages in order that more offals may be made available for pig and poultry food.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now make provision for a whiter loaf to be made available to the public with special regard to authorising a drop in the extraction rate of wheat, and making more wheat offals available for feedingstuffs for cattle.

Mr. Black: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction of the baking trade with the present quality of flour due to the extraction rate remaining at 85 per cent.; that the public is becoming increasingly tired of the loaf produced from such flour; and whether he will consider reducing the rate of extraction to 80 per cent. to enable more palatable bread to be made and to help provide the extra animal feeding-stuffs needed by farmers, pig clubs and small holders.

Mr. Webb: Of course, I should like everybody to have the sort of bread they prefer; but in this matter of the extraction rate we have to consider whether we can buy the extra wheat, whether it will cost dollars, whether the extra milling offals would be dearer than other imported feedingstuffs, and so on. My Department is watching all these changing factors very closely, and when the balance of advantage lies with lowering the extraction rate we shall do it. No ships are being used for storing grain at present.

Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that we are now spending dollars on the purchase of provender for cattle and that we should save the expenditure of those dollars if we reduced the extraction of the wheat from 80 per cent. as it is at present, to about 68 per cent. as it was before the war?

Mr. Webb: All these, of course, are matters to balance in the country's interests, and as I have promised, when the appropriate time comes we shall be able to consider this particular matter.

Brigadier Rayner: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider, with a fresh mind, whether this continued limitation on food for pigs and hens is really necessary; and whether a little thought and a little courage, and particularly a return to a little more power for the private buyer in the world market, would make it unnecessary?

Mr. Webb: I have tried to give thought to it. Courage is another matter. It is a matter to be carefully considered, and I am quite satisfied, after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, that he, on his side, is quite happy about it.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Will my right hon. Friend keep carefully in mind the nutritional value of foods, as well as their colour and palatability?

Choice of Diet

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Food, in view of the fact that the country would benefit from making the choice of diet as free as possible, what steps he proposes to take in the near future to improve the present variety of foodstuffs generally available.

Mr. Webb: I am in full sympathy with this aim. The increased range of foods has enabled us to have a more varied

diet and greater freedom of choice in recent months. I shall do my best to ensure improvement in this respect, consistent with fair sharing of essential foodstuffs. But I am afraid I cannot, at this stage, say what I can do until I have studied the position more fully.

Mr. Higgs: May we hope that there will be a little more variety as well as quantity in the increased stocks of which we have heard lately?

Mr. Webb: I have already made that clear.

Mr. Hastings: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind the requirements of those who eat to live, as well as of those who live to eat?

Plums

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food why we import plums from Czechoslovakia when we have plenty of plums of our own.

Mr. Webb: No plums were imported from Czechoslovakia during 1949, nor are we importing any now.

Coca-cola

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Food what dollar expenditure is involved in the sale in this country of Coca-cola.

Mr. Webb: The Coca-cola sold in this country is manufactured entirely here and there is no dollar expenditure on the ingredients.

Mrs. Castle: Does my right hon. Friend's reply mean that not only is there no dollar expenditure, but that there is no dollar loss through royalty payments or through the transfer of earnings by the company in this country?

Mr. Webb: That is another Question. I would like it to be put on the Order Paper.

Brigadier Rayner: Is not there a British product called Pepsi-cola?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Coca-cola is considerably improved by a nip of gin?

Sultanas

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Food when a further supply of sultanas will be available in the shops.

Mr. Webb: Largely because of the poor Australian crop last year sultanas will be very scarce for the next few months. At present we are allocating to individual areas in turn all we get. Later in the year I hope to have enough fruit to distribute some in all parts of the country.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the currants at present available in the shops are tending to hang fire because the housewife cannot get sultanas to mix with them, and will he do his best to get the maximum quantity of sultanas in the shops?

Mr. Webb: Perhaps my hon. Friend will take me out to see a sultana hanging fire.

Book, "The Groundnut Affair"

Mr. Oliver Stanley: asked the Minister of Food whether he will arrange for the publication of the letter written on or about 12th February, 1950, by the Minister of Food to Mr. Gollancz, as a result of which publication of a book commenting on some aspects of the work of his Department was abandoned.

Mr. Webb: No, Sir.

Mr. Stanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give no reasons? Would it not be fair to the Secretary of State for War that a letter which is being so freely referred to in the Press by the recipient should be published in full, so that everyone may know what it contains?

Mr. Webb: I can only repeat my previous answer to a similar Question. There is no record in my Department of any letter of this description. In any event, the letter from Mr. Gollancz in "The Times" of 22nd March shows there is no need for publication.

Mr. Stanley: Is it not a strange fact that all trace of a letter written by the former Minister of Food has disappeared from the Ministry of Food? Cannot the difficulty be got over by asking the Secretary of State for War whether he happens to have a copy?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): I think that I can explain this very readily. There is no record of the letter in the Ministry of Food because all

this happened during the election, and I wrote from Dundee. There is, of course, no suggestion of separating my personal and official capacities in the matter. It was a perfectly proper letter for me to write while I was Minister of Food.

Mr. Stanley: Am I to gather from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman is telling his successor that he has no objection whatever to this letter being published?

Mr. Strachey: It would be for me to publish it. I see no reason whatever, as the contents of the letter have been described by me to the House, and that description has been confirmed by the recipient of the letter, to publish my correspondence at the behest of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stanley: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that in the account which he gave to the House he never told the House he had written a letter at all? What he said was "I told Mr. Gollancz." Would it not, therefore, be much better to let us have the full contents?

Sir W. Smithers: They dare not publish it.

Jam

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Food whether he will increase the minimum fruit content of raspberry jam made by jam manufacturers from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent.

Mr. Webb: I should very much like to do so, if it could be managed without a general increase in the price of jam or raspberries to the housewife. I think we must wait until we see how the 1950 crop turns out.

Captain Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the war there were two standards—one 38 per cent. full fruit standard, and the other a special standard, and will he do his best to work towards the higher standard in the interest of the housewife and of British growers of raspberries?

Mr. Webb: Yes, Sir, in the light of the 1950 crop.

Mr. Vane: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the other 80 per cent. of the content of raspberry jam?

Captain Duncan: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Points Goods

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the growing difficulty which shopkeepers have in disposing of pointed goods; and whether he will make a statement on his policy towards such goods.

Mr. Webb: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Crosby (Captain Bullock) on 22nd March.

Mr. Hollis: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he gave that reply, as I understand it, the notice has been issued that no change in points rationing will take place, and that the goods are still in the shops?

Mr. Webb: I wish the hon. Gentleman would not press this matter. It really is a matter for the most urgent and complete examination, and I want, if possible, to make a reply at the earliest possible moment.

Prices

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food what alteration he proposes to make in the prices of food, consequent upon the decisions made in the 1950 February price review.

Mr. Webb: I have nothing to announce at the moment, but, as the hon. Member will recognise, this is a matter under my most immediate attention.

Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will reach a decision on this matter?

Mr. Webb: Next week, I hope.

Cream

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Food when fresh cream will be made available for the general public.

Mr. Webb: I am afraid I am not in a position to say at the moment if I can arrange for supplies of fresh cream. Naturally, if our milk supplies permit, I shall want to do so, although this year it could only be for a short time, and supplies would be scarce and expensive. However, I fear it will be

some weeks before I can accurately estimate whether or not some release of fresh cream will be possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Halifax—Burnley Road (Repairs)

Mr. Douglas Houghton: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that repairs to the Halifax—Burnley road at Luddendenfoot and Mytholmroyd have caused traffic delays for many months past; and when he expects the work to be completed.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): Yes, Sir. The work has now been completed.

Pedestrian Crossings

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to introduce amendments of the existing pedestrian crossing regulations, based on the recommendations of the Committee on Road Safety, and which will have the effect of removing certain ambiguities.

Mr. Barnes: In spite of very long and careful consideration of this matter, so far it has been found impracticable to frame regulations in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Road Safety in a form which would define in clear and simple language the respective rights and obligations of pedestrians and drivers of vehicles in all circumstances at controlled crossings. Legally, effective regulations for this purpose would, in fact, be considerably more complex than those now existing. They would not be easily understood by the public and for that reason it would be difficult to secure their observance.
I am, therefore, considering whether it would be preferable to deal with the matter so far as controlled crossings are concerned by giving guidance in the Highway Code to drivers and pedestrians. Failure to observe any provisions of the Highway Code may be taken into account by a court in any civil or criminal proceedings to which it is relevant. Uncontrolled crossings can be effectively dealt with by regulations.

Mr. Janner: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the position is


very, very serious and that there is terrible confusion about the use of these crossings, with the consequent result of very serious accidents at times? If he includes this in the Highway Code, would he publicise the regulations as widely as possible, so that the number of these accidents can be reduced?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir, certainly. I should like to emphasise that this matter is causing me very great concern. If new regulations are to define these rights they must be clear and simple for the public, but so far the local authorities and the police have not been able to agree.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: On the other hand, from the motorist's point of view, is the Minister aware that if pedestrians were fully to exercise their rights on regulated crossings they could bring the traffic of London to a standstill in five minutes?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, but we can always depend upon the common sense of our people to avoid that.

Mr. Profumo: Who has the right of way at a pedestrian crossing when the lights are green to the motorist?

Mr. Barnes: I have just stated that the Committee have recommended on this, and that I am now awaiting advice as to whether we can put the recommendation into operation. I have stated repeatedly that the pedestrian has the right to cross at controlled crossings.

Acquired Undertakings (Compensation)

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Transport (1) how many owners or ex-owners of undertakings compulsorily acquired by the British Transport Commission know the final amount of their total compensation; and how many of these have received final and total payment;
(2) how many "A" licence holders have been taken over; what were the total payments involved; the number of dispossessed holders who have been notified of the compensation payable; and the number who have received payment.

Mr. Barnes: As the answer is long and contains a number of figures I propose,

with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The British Transport Commission have informed me that up to 28th February the undertakings of 1,579 "A" and "B" licence holders have been transferred to the Commission. The total payments involved will not be known until all valuations of assets have been completed and accounts received from the transferors, so that compensation can be finally assessed and, where necessary, confirmed by the Transport Arbitration Tribunal.

Out of 1,069 cases in which it had been possible to calculate a provisional ascertainment of compensation up to 28th February, 1950, notification had been given to 985 transferors. Up to the same date, payment in Transport Stock and/or cash of compensation provisionally ascertained, less a deduction of 10 per cent. in accordance with Section 48 (1) of the Transport Act, had been made on 664 cases, in addition to which cash advances had been made in 293 smaller cases. In 78 cases payment of compensation in the form of Transport Stock was offered by the Commission at various dates from 31st October, 1949, to 17th February, 1950, but the transferors chose to wait until 1st April, 1950, for payment.

Road, Lee-on-Solent

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet come to a decision about the proposals submitted to him for an alternative main road from Lee-on-Solent as replacement for that road closed by the Admiralty during the war.

Mr. Barnes: The county council have submitted proposals for the replacement of the closed road. I regard these as generally satisfactory, but the cost, which is estimated at £90,000, seems too large an expenditure to be incurred in present economic conditions, particularly as there is already an alternative route. I consider, however, that a new alternative road should be provided as soon as the economic situation permits.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask if he has in mind the continuing waste which is being brought about by the diversion of traffic from


the north and east through the village of Stubbington, north-west of Lee-on-Solent, and also the congestion and danger on this inadequate road? Is he also aware that the prolongation of this road's closing is handicapping a seaside resort, one of whose greatest assets should be its accessibility?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir. As I have already indicated, I do not consider the alternative road satisfactory, but in view of the restrictions on capital expenditure I regret that this is not possible at present. Its urgency and needs are, however, fully recognised.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Safety (International Convention)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport if the requisite number of nations have now signed the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, which was drawn up at the conference in London in 1948; and when it will come into operation.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. The Convention comes into force 12 months after it has been accepted by 15 countries, seven of which have each not less than one million gross tons of shipping. So far, acceptances have been deposited by the United Kingdom, the United States of America and France. I am not in a position to say when the Convention will come into operation.

Mr. Awbery: How many signatures are necessary to bring this Convention into operation; and what is being done to persuade those nations that have not signed to sign so that it can come into operation on 1st January next, as anticipated?

Mr. Barnes: I have already said, 15 countries, seven of which have each not less than one million gross tons of shipping. I cannot exercise influence on other countries to adopt this course.

Mr. Eden: Surely it would be possible for the Foreign Office to push around a bit and try to encourage other countries to come into line with ourselves?

Mr. Barnes: Encouragement is taking place at present. We are endeavouring to influence other countries.

Mr. Eden: I thought the right hon. Gentleman said he could not exercise influence.

Officers' Certificates (Examination)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport how many men sat in 1949 for their master's or mate's certificate under the Merchant Shipping Act; how many were successful; and if he is satisfied with the standard set in this examination.

Mr. Barnes: Two thousand five hundred and fifty-eight men sat for a master's or mate's certificate in 1949 and 1,925 certificates were issued in that year. I am fully satisfied with the standard set in the examinations.

Mr. Awbery: In view of the fact that these men go through an intensive course of training before they sit for this examination, and that 25 per cent. of them fail after this course, would my right hon. Friend consider whether the standard is too high for this examination?

Mr. Barnes: The syllabus is agreed with both sides of the industry, and I am not aware of any representations that express the dissatisfaction to which my hon. Friend has just referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the Fuchs trial and of the evidence given in telegram 270 on page 59 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Canadian spy trial, he will set up a similar commission in Britain presided over by one of His Majesty's judges.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: When the Prime Minister says he is anti-Communist does he really mean business; and will he, as a first step, apply the same security regulations that are applied to the admission of civil servants to members of his own Cabinet, including the Secretary of State for War?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not make imputations against the patriotism of other right hon. or hon. Members.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of Order. Ought the hon. Gentleman not to withdraw that statement after your remarks to him, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I think my rebuke is enough.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYAN GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL

Lord John Hope: asked the Prime Minister how soon supplies of the ribbon of the Malayan General Service Medal will be available in the theatre of operations.

The Prime Minister: Supplies for the Forces and the regular Malayan Police will be available in Malaya in about 10 days' time. Ribbon for other categories is being manufactured.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Military Medal for gallantry in Malaya has recently been awarded to Private Hugh McPhee of the Seaforth Highlanders? Is he further aware that Private McPhee has no house, and is living with his two daughters in a corrugated iron shelter; and can he exchange the Military Medal for a house?

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Lord President of the Council what proportion of the space in the Festival of Britain Exhibition is being allocated to the display of engineering products.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I have been asked to reply. Several of the Festival of Britain exhibitions will deal with oustanding British achievements in engineering, and will, incidentally, display certain engineering products. Engineering will be particularly prominent in the main exhibition on the South Bank and in the exhibition of industrial power in the Kelvin Hall, Glasgow.

Mr. Watkinson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may

I ask whether he is aware that certain sections of the engineering industry are finding great difficulty in agreeing on this question of the proper display of their products; and will he perhaps look into the matter to see that this exhibition, which is costing the taxpayer such a large sum of money, does at least try to bring some return in giving the maximum possible display to our products?

Mr. Whiteley: The hon. Gentleman must realise that there are several exhibitions in connection with the Festival. There is the land travelling exhibition—

Mr. Watkinson: It is the exhibition on the South Bank.

Mr. Whiteley: —and the seaborne exhibition, and they all have their engineering sides, which will have to be looked at. As we get nearer to the exhibition we shall get some idea of the space required, but that matter is being kept firmly in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — "BRITISH ALLY," MOSCOW

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the resignation of Mr. R. Daglish, formerly assistant editor in Moscow of "British Alley"; whether he is aware that this resignation, following on the resignation of a previous editor, Mr. Johnstone, in April, 1949, has received wide publicity in the Soviet Union and done much to detract from British prestige; and if he will now give an assurance that no persons known to hold Communist or Marxist views will be employed on the editorial staff of "British Ally" or in any other capacity in the Soviet Union.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): Mr. R. Daglish, to whom the hon. and gallant Member refers, arrived in Moscow to take up the appointment of assistant editor of "British Ally" early in January, 1949. Shortly after his arrival, he established a liaison with a Soviet woman, and His Majesty's Ambassador decided that it would be in Mr. Daglish's own interest that he should be sent home and informed him accordingly on 30th July. Instead of complying, Mr. Daglish decided to try to find employment outside the


Embassy which would enable him to stay in the Soviet Union. He was then informed that he had, by his own action, in refusing to go home, terminated his contract.
On 9th March, "Pravda" published over Mr. Daglish's signature a string of accusations against His Majesty's Government and His Majesty's Embassy. I cannot believe, however, that the prestige of His Majesty's Government has suffered much from this episode. No persons whose loyalty is known to be questionable are appointed in any capacity to any of His Majesty's Missions abroad.

Major Beamish: Can we have an assurance that no one known to hold Marxist views, as I ask in the Question, will be employed on "British Ally," or in any Communist country?

Mr. Davies: In this case, I think the hon. and gallant Member should be satisfied. Mr. Daglish informed "Pravda" in his statement that he had until recently been a member of the British Conservative Party.

Mr. Porter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the words "Communist" and "Marxist" are not necessarily synonymous?

Mr. de Chair: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Russians also have a saying, that there is no news in "Truth," which is the meaning of "Pravda," and no truth in "News," which is the meaning of "Izvestia"?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SHIPPING, LAS PALMAS

Captain Ryder: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representation he has made to the Spanish Government regarding the alleged discrimination against British shipping at Las Palmas on 16th March.

Mr. Ernest Davies: His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires drew the attention of the Spanish Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the alleged discrimination on 8th March. It was pointed out that the action of the Spanish authorities seemed to contravene Article 16 of the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 1922. These representations were repeated on 16th March. I understand

that orders have now been given by the Spanish authorities that there shall be no flag discrimination, but no official reply has yet been received by His Majesty's Embassy.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (BRITISH LEGATION OFFICIALS)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he recently recalled to this country the British Commercial and Military Attaches in Budapest.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Commercial Secretary and the Assistant Military Attaché at His Majesty's Legation in Budapest were withdrawn because each had been declared persona non grata by the Hungarian Government. His Majesty's Government have made it clear to the Hungarian Government that the allegations against these members of His Majesty's Legation, upon which the request for their recall was based, are completely unfounded.

Mr. Haire: Does this not appear to give the impression that we accept in some measure the accusations levelled against these worthy representatives in the recent trials in Budapest, and should we not afford them greater protection than we appear to be doing?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not share that point of view. The greatest protection is given by withdrawing these gentlemen at this time, because once a diplomat has been declared persona non grata he may be deprived of his diplomatic privileges.

Mr. Eden: Surely we have an interest in this, too. Is any other step contemplated? Is the Hungarian representation to remain completely unchanged in this country, after they have behaved in this way to our representatives?

Mr. Davies: As it has already been stated, this matter is under active consideration by the Foreign Office at present.

Mr. Eden: Would it not be much better to say what we propose to do at the time we announce the withdrawal of our people, following what is very high-handed treatment by the Hungarian Government?

Mr. Davies: We do not want to take over-hasty action in this matter but to give it full consideration. There are more countries than Hungary concerned in this, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Eden: I am not suggesting hasty action, but this is an action by a Government which cannot be described as of a very friendly character, to put it mildly. I agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire), that if we are to alter our representation in reply to action that is not at all usual in diplomatic practice, we should coincide that action with whatever further steps we propose to take.

Mr. Haire: Does this mean that if the remainder of our Legation at Budapest were declared personae non gratae, they would be withdrawn?

Mr. Davies: That is a hypothetical question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINA (DOUBLE TAXATION)

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the course of the present negotiations with the Argentine Government, he will endeavour to secure an agreement to avoid the payment of double taxation by commercial undertakings and individual taxpayers.

Mr. Ernest Davies: His Majesty's Government are anxious to conclude an agreement with the Argentine to relieve British traders and others of the burden of double taxation. This subject is not, however, on the agenda of the current discussions in Buenos Aires, which concern the revision of trade schedules, in accordance with the relevant Articles of the Anglo-Argentine Trade and Payment Agreement of 27th June, 1949.

Mr. Smithers: Will the Under-Secretary give an indication that this matter will be raised at an early date with the Argentine Government? With regard to the negotiations mentioned in the Question, is he yet able to say whether they have been broken off by the Argentine Government, and, if so, whether it is because of words spoken in this House by the Minister of Food?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir; I have nothing to say on the latter part of the Question. I am not informed on that matter. As regards the first part, it is our intention to open negotiations on this matter of double taxation at an appropriate moment.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Why has this matter, which has been put before the Government many times over the last three or four years, only now been taken up, in view of the fact that it is such a barrier to trade between the two countries?

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EASTERN COMMISSION

Mr. Prescott: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that British views are not accorded sufficient consideration on the Far Eastern Commission, what steps His Majesty's Government will take to remedy this position.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I do not accept the assumption in the first part of the Question. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the views of the United Kingdom representative on the Far Eastern Commission are accorded full consideration.

Mr. Prescott: Is it not a fact that this Commission is almost wholly ineffective in formulating policy for Japan, and almost always has been so? In view of that, what steps are being taken to remedy the position?

Mr. Davies: As stated, we are satisfied that our delegates views are receiving the fullest consideration at the present time.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is considerable disappointment in the textile trade in this country at the fact that the Anglo-American Mission has yet to arrive in Japan?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir, we are aware of that dissatisfaction. It is not being overlooked, but that is a different question.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Lancashire cotton industry is already beginning to show adverse effects as a result of the unfair kind of competition being encouraged by the American occupying forces in Japan?


If he is satisfied now, will he bear in mind that there are a great many people in this country who are not satisfied, and that in a short time the Government also will not be satisfied?

Mr. Davies: We are satisfied that the views we put forward are given full consideration at the meetings which take place. We do not say that the results at these meetings are always to our entire satisfaction, but if my hon. Friend will put down the specific point he wishes to raise I will endeavour to give a reply.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the Under-Secretary, as a first step, publish reports of the preliminary conversations between members of the Cotton Commission in America on the question of Japanese competition?

Mr. Davies: I will bring that suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Refugees

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Polish refugees in excess of the 25,000 authorised under the agreement of November, 1949, between the Allied High Commissioner and the Polish Government, have been admitted into western Germany territory since that date; and how many have been turned back on the frontier.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the recent transfer of German refugees, via the Soviet zone of Germany, from Poland and the Polish-administered territories of Germany. Although the Allied High Commission had approved the admission of 25,000 selected refugees into the Federal Republic no agreement on their transfer could be reached with the Polish Government, since the latter broke off negotiations. From 3rd March, when the recent transfers began, until 18th March, 1,188 of the German refugees from Poland had been admitted into the German Federal Republic; 1,226 had been turned back at the frontier because they were not among the authorised 25,000.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the Under-Secretary say whether or not the Polish

Government informed the British Embassy in Warsaw that it was their intention to expel all German citizens living east of the Oder-Niesse line?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir, we have no knowledge of that information having been conveyed to us.

Mr. John Hynd: While everyone must condemn these expulsions, in view of the fact that the German authorities feel impelled to accept these refugees, in the name of humanity, why should the British Government and the High Commission try to turn them back?

Mr. Davies: We cannot allow unlimited numbers of refugees to flock across the border. If we did so, it would put those people already living there into difficulties—and we do not consider that to be fair.

Earl Winterton: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether the International Refugee Organisation has been consulted on this matter? Is he aware that in the days of another Government, the refugee committee, of which I was at one time chairman, put these matters to the international body? Would not His Majesty's Government be saved a good deal of trouble and embarrassment if the International Refugee Organisation were consulted today?

Mr. Davies: In the first instance this was a question of negotiations with the Polish Government. No agreement was reached. The question of negotiations with another organisation is one of which I should want notice.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the existence of this organisation on which His Majesty's Government are represented.

Mr. Davies: Yes, I am well aware of the existence of the I.R.O. What I suggested was that whether there have been consultations on a specific matter was a question of which I should require notice.

Mr. Eden: Is this not another reason why this organisation should not have been kept in being much longer? Some of us are rather worried at it being wound up. Is this not a further argument for keeping it in being?

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that a High Commissioner for Refugees is to take over in


June the residue of the functions of the I.R.O., so that the work will not be wound up, as was originally intended.

Film, "Titanic"

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received the report of the British High Commissioner in Germany regarding the showing of the film, "Titanic," in the American zone; and what further action he proposes to take.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Yes, Sir, and the matter is at present under consideration in Germany.

Mr. Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern in this country at the showing of this blatant anti-British film in the American zone of Germany, and will he persuade his right hon. Friend to take early action on it?

Mr. Davies: We are aware of the resentment that has been caused. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are actively considering this matter, and I hope a decision will be reached in the very near future.

Mr. Langford-Holt: While His Majesty's Government are actively considering this matter, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many persons daily are seeing this film?

Oral Answers to Questions — U.N.O. SECRETARY-GENERAL (SPEECH)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered the appeal by Mr. Trygve Lie for a twenty years peace plan, a copy of which has been sent him; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No such plan has been received.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the speech made by Mr. Trygve Lie in New York recently, in which he expressed the point of view of millions of people throughout the world who want an end put to the diplomatic tension? Will he call for a report of that speech, and give it sympathetic consideration?

Mr. Davies: We have seen a report of this speech, which was delivered on

21st March at Washington, and there is no new proposal put forward in it. The statements made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, however, are being considered, and, of course, if any approach is made to my right hon. Friend he will give it every due consideration.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: Will the Government take an early opportunity of informing Mr. Lie that such public interventions as this, and his previous appeal to the British and Americans to come to terms with the Soviet Union, are as improper for the Secretary-General of such an international organisation as this as they are inadequate for the problems involved?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. Mr. Trygve Lie as Secretary-General of the United Nations organisation, and in his personal capacity, has a perfect right to express his views.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)

Colonel Ropner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to renew full diplomatic relations with the Government of Spain.

Mr. Ernest Davies: His Majesty's Government have not severed diplomatic relations with the Government of Spain. His Majesty's Ambassador was withdrawn from Madrid in compliance with the recommendation of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution of 12th December, 1946. His Majesty's Government have every intention of abiding by this resolution as long as it remains in force.

Colonel Ropner: My Question related to full diplomatic relations. Is it not really absurd that both Spain and this country should be denied advantages which would accrue from full diplomatic relations, particularly if the reason is that we do not like the form of Government in Spain, and particularly as we are in full diplomatic relationship with a large number of dictator countries, which are at least as friendly as Spain is to this country?

Mr. Davies: The Government of Spain remain as repugnant to us now as when


this resolution was passed. We are conforming with the resolution of the United Nations and intend to do so. If the United Nations rescind that resolution, then the matter of what action we will take will arise.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Will His Majesty's Government be prepared to take the initiative and again bring this matter before the United Nations?

Mr. Davies: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS

Mr. de Chair: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what formal request he has received from the new Wafd Government of Egypt for the opening of negotiations to revise the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 concluded when the Wafd were last in power; and whether he will take advantage of the Wafd's return to power to negotiate a new treaty in the same cordial spirit as the old, based on mutual respect for the sovereign rights of each Power while at the same time recognising their strategic interdependence.

Mr. Ernest Davies: During his recent visit to Cairo my right hon. Friend found the leaders of the newly appointed Egyptian Government in full accord with His Majesty's Government that a broad settlement of outstanding differences between our two countries was greatly to be desired. We are in friendly touch with the Egyptian Government, but have not reached the stage of formal interchanges.

Mr. de Chair: In approaching these matters would His Majesty's Government try to convince the Egyptians that if it is possible for us to have an American bombing base in East Anglia without any sense of infringement of our national sovereignty, it should be quite possible for them to regard a base in the desert near the canal zone as an adjunct to, and not an infringement of, their own national sovereignty?

Mr. Davies: That goes rather wide of the Question. I do not feel it can be answered by Question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOVIET OFFICIALS, LONDON

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Soviet Mission and Soviet agencies in London are permitted to have approximately 259 members when the corresponding figure for British Government representatives in Moscow is about 80.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The disparity is not as stated by the hon. Member. As I said in my reply to his Question on 20th March, the actual number of members of the Soviet Embassy is now only about half of the total of 187 notified. The disparity in numbers of agency officials is because there are no British counterparts in Moscow of Soviet agencies represented in this country, such as the Soviet Trade Delegation, the Tass News Agency and the Moscow Narodny Bank.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN DIPLOMATS, LONDON (DEPARTURES)

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the normal diplomatic practice as regards the notification by foreign embassies in London of the departure of their members.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The normal practice is for the mission to inform the Foreign Office of the departure of the individual concerned.

Mr. Lindsay: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the situation he disclosed last week, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, to the effect that about half of the Soviet Mission may have returned or may have not, but that he had not any information on the subject, is satisfactory on the grounds of security?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir, and we are taking steps to make a further request for a notification of those who have left.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock."—[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — NAVY ESTIMATES, 1950–51—REPORT [22nd March]

VOTE A. NUMBERS

Resolution reported,
That 143,000 Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and the Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

3.31 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite - Eyre: I regret that I was not able, as I have been for the past five years, to be present when these Estimates were considered on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." I heard only a very small part of them, but it struck me then, and since in reading HANSARD, that a new tone had entered our debates. In the past we have argued about relatively small things upon the Navy Estimates, or if not about small things about matters of administration. The new tone that appeared last week was a grave anxiety about the state of the Navy as it is at present and as it might be if we were called upon to meet a new emergency.
This fact is more important now than it might be at any other time, because we shall see the expiry this year of the Supplies and Transitional Powers Act. This is the last time that we shall be able to know that whatever we may do about the Navy Estimates there is in reserve power to call up, if there be need, certain classes of people to man the Navy. When we discuss these Estimates again in 1951 there will be this new state of affairs. We shall have to rely upon the Navy as it is, upon its present recruitment and past reserves to meet any emergency and not, as we have done in the last five years, upon the over-riding ability to invoke an Act to meet the sudden emergency with a sudden order which has to be obeyed.

That is the chief point which was at the back of the mind of most hon. Members.
If one looks at this particular very closely we see that, as on other major questions raised by hon. Members of all parties, we have to be content largely with assurances, either from the Civil Lord of the Admiralty or from the Parliamentary Secretary, that everything is all right. We had very little information to prove that what they said could be substantiated and that, if an emergency arose, they would be able to fulfil the pledges that they had given. I shall mention only a few of the matters that arose, rather in the order in which they occurred in the Debate than in the order of magnitude in ascending or descending order.
Let us take first the question of dockyards. Members who represent naval towns, whether or not connected, as I am, with a great commercial port, will know full well that work in the naval and civilian dockyards is running down, and many people are becoming redundant and are being discharged. I believe they are finding other jobs in civilian employment, but it remains true that unless something is done more effective than, as the Civil Lord and the Parliamentary Secretary said, "that the matter receiving their attention," and unless something more immediate and concrete is done, then the establishment of Committees to examine the situation we shall lose that body of technicians upon which the Navy and our naval vessels depend.
I should like to refer to my own town of Southampton, where a great deal of work has been done, particularly in Messrs. Thornycroft's. That work is now coming to an end and all the skilled labour is being dissipated. If an emergency arose, the Parliamentary Secretary would find it very difficult to get that labour back again to meet the demands from naval and civilian dockyards in Southampton. I hope that he will be able to say something more on this question this afternoon than that a committee is considering it and is being asked to report quickly. The time for that consideration is gone. What is now needed is to preserve this body of skilled labour.
On the question of re-engagement, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) drew attention to the fact


that a man who left the Navy after 12 years' service receives £100 bonus but gets nothing if he re-engages in the Navy. In his reply, the Civil Lord said—as reported in column 2115, of HANSARD—that this bonus is given for work done, and must be paid to the person who went out. Whether one re-engages or not, 12 years' work has been done. Why should not the bonus be paid for the 12 years' work done and not because the man leaves the Navy? That seems to me both in equity and justice and in business to be the best way to secure re-engagement. The bonus should be paid to all people completing 12 years' service, and it should be clearly stated that a further bonus will be paid to those who re-engage and who go on for a further term. That would be no contravention of justice, but it would be making justice mean something. Those who do something in the service of their country have a right to expect their country to recognise them and do something for them.
I have spoken of the emergency powers under the Transitional Services Act. Are we to understand that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Civil Lord are satisfied with the present position, chiefly on the ground that they are better off in respect of Reserves in the Navy than in the other Services? Reading that Debate, I do not think either of them could say that if there was an emergency those Reserves are capable of meeting the immediate need of the Navy. That is a very simple point and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will address himself to that point and that point only. It is easy enough to make comparisons and easy to say that in the overall situation of the Reserves we are not doing so badly, but the real question is whether those Reserves are sufficient for our need. If they are not, the programme is not fulfilling what it set out to do. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a clear answer to that.
Here is a most important point. For five years we have waited for a clear statement from the Admiralty as to what sort of Navy they envisage as the post-war requirement. I know that for a few years after a great war it is obviously necessary to have a great deal of consideration, thought and analysing of what has happened, to try to see the loom of the

future. Five years have now passed, and, having read the statement by the First Lord and having looked at these Estimates, I think it is true to say that we are no nearer, knowing that or that the Parliamentary Secretary is no nearer knowing today what sort of Navy he wants to see in the future than his predecessor was five years ago.
We cannot go on like this, just chopping and changing, making ad hoc decisions and saying that it is still necessary to investigate and that there must be more experiments. If we are to meet the dangers of the present, the time has come when we must know in a concrete fashion exactly upon what the Navy is to be built, the pattern it must develop and the way in which the Government think that they can fulfil to the best effect not only the traditional rôles of the Navy but the others which have come upon it because of the present situation. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will address himself to that and be able to tell us that as a result of the money spent in the last five years and the money for which he is asking today, we shall see starting to grow a pattern of naval sea power which will be able to safeguard the very many interests of this country.
I want to spend one or two minutes on the Service which interests me particularly, the Royal Marines. I must admit that I was very sad to see that Chatham was to be closed down. I am certainly not prepared to argue that the closing down of Chatham is of itself a sin which cannot be forgiven, but it is something which, in the overall picture of what the Royal Marines are expected to do, must be justified. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say something of this picture. For a great many years the Royal Marines have been set at one-tenth of the total naval strength, a figure which is quite arbitrary and bears no relation to the duties that they are called upon to perform.
I asked last year and I ask again whether in setting that figure there has been any discussion as to whether it is sufficient for the duties which are laid upon the corps of Royal Marines. Those duties are three. As far as I understand it—I speak now not having been in the Corps for some five years—they are, first, to provide detachments in His Majesty's ships, secondly, to provide Commandos,


and thirdly, to man the smaller landing craft in Combined Operations. When I look at the Estimates and see that the present strength is 12,700—that is, taking the one tenth—and then look at the Press and see that that strength is to be whittled down to 10,000, I wonder very much how the Parliamentary Secretary can say that this strength is sufficient to meet those very heavy burdens or to carry them sufficiently well so that in the case of an emergency the Royal Marines will be able to carry out what the Admiralty have laid upon their shoulders.
I also want to look at this from the point of view of sea service. The Civil Lord will agree with me that the duties of the Royal Marines afloat are still their prime job. How many Royal Marines can go to sea each year? How many people who enter the Royal Marines can look forward to a tour of sea service? I should like to know the answers to those two questions. I do not know whether it is asking too much, but if the Parliamentary Secretary can give me those answers I shall be grateful.
Their second great duty is to provide Commandos. There is one brigade at the moment. I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will join with me in saying that in the last few years they have done a magnificent job of work. They have been called upon to go from one difficult place to another, and whether it be in Palestine, Aqaba or Hong Kong, they have done a job of which I am certain he is as proud as I am. However, one brigade is not sufficient to be able to form a nucleus of what would be needed in the case of an emergency. If we had only one brigade, would it be used as one unit? If it was used as one unit, it would be useless. If it was split up, as the Commandos were in the past, equally one brigade would not be able to meet anywhere near the calls that would be made upon it in an emergency.
If the Commandos are to be entrusted to the Royal Marines the very minimum strength of which such a scheme can be worked is that equivalent to a division. I do not mean a division in the sense of a field force, but sufficient men to form out of three brigades Commando detachments to serve in theatres of war wherever they may be needed for all those immediate objectives in the first stages of

a crisis which it would be the duty of the Navy plus the Marines to attain. We all hope such an emergency will not arise but if it does there will never have been a time when D-day and D plus I will prove to have been so important. Those two days can mean more to the success, loss or length of the war than anything else. In those two days it will be our Naval forces plus a land striking force as represented by the Commandos which will tip the balance.
I should also like to ask something about Combined Operations. They do not appear in this Vote except in so far as the Royal Marines are concerned. We hear very little about Combined Operations these days, despite everything that we learnt to our cost about their intricateness and the necessity for constant training. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how many craft are available today for training? How many people are being trained? What liaison is there with the Army? Are any Army divisions being trained?
In the case of an emergency, will there be a sufficient force, be it based on the Royal Marine Commandos or on Army units, together with the landing craft which we have, to be able to strike as raiding parties or landing parties and secure the very many bases which will be essential to our safety? I doubt it, and I doubt it more when I look at page 201 of the Estimates and see that the Craft and Amphibious Material Department of the Admiralty has now been suspended. What has taken its place? Who, now, is looking after this vital subject of being able to land troops with knowledge, skill and experience in order to provide that immediate striking force so badly needed?
The Royal Marines are being run down to 10,000 from approximately 4,700. That is bound to affect a great number of officers and senior N.C.Os., particularly as the Royal Marines are a long service corps. What is being done to help those who are bound to be retired as a result? I hope there is some scheme, and if the Parliamentary Secretary can say anything about it I would be grateful.
With the closing down of Chatham, this is the second change suffered by the Royal Marines in five years. They were reorganised once on a group basis, they are now being re-reorganised on a kind


of land and sea training basis. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can say that this is permanent and the end of the chopping and changing of Admiralty policy, so that the Royal Marines can get on with their training in the knowledge that they will not be asked once again to readjust themselves.
Whether it be the Royal Marines, the Fleet Air Arm, or any other branch of the Navy, the Debate last week showed that the time has come for the Admiralty to be able to say to this House that the period of hesitation after the war is over, that they now have a clear policy, that they know the basis on which they want to build, and that they know what they want to build. Reading the Debate I did not feel that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Civil Lord said that and, above all, I did not feel that they could go to that Box and say that the Navy could meet an immediate crisis as it always has to do. This is no reflection on the other Services, since history has shown that whatever may be the time lag, the opportunity to pick up the slack afforded to the Air Force or the Army, the Navy has to fight from the initial moment.
It seemed to me that the Parliamentary Secretary was not able to say to this House that under the present Government the Navy would be able to do that. I ask him to act on the assumption that by the time he presents the next Estimates he will have no emergency powers to help him, that it will be on his organisation that the Navy will depend and that, if he is to safeguard his manifold responsibilities he must be able to stand at that Box and say, "The Admiralty propose a Navy which is capable, for this and that reason, of fulfilling its duties, and of once again acting as the first safeguard of this country and of the people who, throughout many generations and centuries, have always and unflinchingly faced and met and conquered the shock of enemy."

3.55 p.m.

Commander Pursey: The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) has made a pessimistic speech, as he did last year, and I say to him that these speeches crying "stinking fish," not only do harm to this country, as such, but also to our relations with America, Western Union countries, and the other Powers with whom we are trying to collaborate in

order to build up that pact of security which is necessary for peace in the world today. At the end of his speech the hon. and gallant Member said that this was the last time that the Admiralty would be able to come here without a clear policy and that they would have to state what was their policy—or words to that effect—I am not quoting—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: No you are not.

Commander Pursey: The hon. and gallant Member said earlier that there was grave anxiety. I say that there is no grave anxiety for the good reason that, actually and relatively to the remainder of the world today, with the exception of America, we are stronger from the naval point of view than we have ever been in our history. I have said that before and so has the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. So there is no reason for this pessimism and nonsensical arguments.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied, for instance, from what he heard in the Debate last week in which he said that we are now competent to deal with submarines?

Commander Pursey: I want to develop my speech in my own way. The Parliamentary Secretary said quite clearly that we are definitely in a position to deal competently with such submarines as exist at present—not the mythical hundreds of fast submarines existing only in the imagination of the hon. and gallant Member. He went on to discuss the shortage of manpower and various other things. Today our manpower is greater than it was between the wars so that there is no need for any concern in that case. Moreover we are reducing our manpower in order that money may be available to build up the other factors of our naval strength.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to paint a gloomy picture of our dockyards and shipyards. Yet today there is more work in the naval dockyards and more work in the private yards than before so he is completely wrong there.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: indicated dissent.

Commander Pursey: It is no good the hon. and gallant Member shaking his


head and laughing this argument off because I shall quote from a reliable authority. In the "Newcastle Evening Chronicle" of 23rd March, which was only last week, Sir Mark Hodgson said in connection with shipyards:
There never was a better prospect for the shipbuilding industry, with the exception of during the war, than there is today. We could never see as far ahead as we can at present.
The hon. and gallant Member then discussed employment in the shipyards, which applies to the dockyards as well as the ordinary shipyards. What is required in both types of yards is alternative employment in order that there shall never again be mass unemployment there as there was under all the Tory Governments. The hon. and gallant Member referred to Thornycroft's at Southampton running out of work. If they have any business acumen, the answer is for them to go out for more work because there is plenty available. Examples can be quoted. In Northern Ireland Harland and Wolff have gone out for alternative employment by way of pipe lines in Iraq and work in East Africa. In Sunderland the shipbuilding firm of Greenwells have gone out for three new projects including a new dry dock and a new fitting out yard in order to build 28,000-ton tankers. So for the hon. and gallant Member to quote one of the minor firms—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: indicated dissent.

Commander Pursey: It is no good the hon. and gallant Member shaking his head and laughing again. Thornycroft's is one of the minor firms, building small craft. The big firms on the Tyne and elsewhere, firms like Harland and Wolff, who build aircraft carriers, large liners, and the 28,000-ton tankers to which I have referred are employed. So it is quite wrong for the hon. and gallant Member to make statements denigrating this country, both from the point of view of collective security and, what is more important, to the detriment of the shipbuilders of this country.
The shipbuilders and their organisations are today saying that there is a shortage of orders, whereas the "Sunday Express," if we can believe that newspaper, for what it is worth, said a week

ago that the yards on the Clyde had filled up their books with orders for two years. A tanker, for example, could not be ordered for completion in under two years. In addition to tankers there are, of course, cargo ships, liners and so on, which—

Mr. Speaker: Merchant shipping is quite outside Vote A, which relates to the numbers of men and so on employed in the Navy and not in merchant shipping.

Commander Pursey: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The work is available, and there is no reason for the numbers of men employed in dockyards and shipyards to be cut down.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: indicated dissent.

Commander Pursey: It is no good for the hon. and gallant Member to shake his head, for that is the position nationally.
The hon. and gallant Member went on to deal with the question of re-engagements and the bonus scheme. What is the reason why men are not re-engaging? It is because of full employment and the chance of getting, as they could never get before, employment outside the Navy. Instead of hon. Members opposite now advocating something which they never proposed between the wars, what they should advocate is the means to enable both officers and men to cut their expenses. The present rates of pay compare well with those of civilian life; that was never the case before the war. But consideration needs to be given to the various necessary items of expenses. Officers have to pay for their kit; the men receive a kit allowance. Then there are such things as railway and other expenses in getting home, and the increased costs to the married men in getting accommodation for their wives and families.
There is no justification for the argument that a bonus should be paid to induce men to re-engage. Even if a large bonus were paid, the numbers who would re-engage as a result would be comparatively small. The real problem is to encourage men to stay on for their second period of service and so to complete their time for pension, and then to be able to enter civil life and worthwhile employment. That is a problem which is being considered for the first time by the present Government. It was never tackled before.
The hon. and gallant Member dealt next with the question of Reserves, and suggested that, by and large, we had practically no Reserves. That was the general point of his argument. In actual fact, however, we have more Reserves today than ever before. We have the Reserves from the last war, those who have left the Service in the last five years, and now there are to be those who have served their training under the National Service scheme. There is no question that, while a specific Reserve may not be up to prewar standard—such as the Royal Naval Reserve, for example, which has only recently been started—the total number of Reserves compares very favourably with our numbers at the outbreak of the Second World War.
The hon. and gallant Member argued that a clear statement was required on the role of the Navy in peace and in war. What information does he wish to volunteer to a potential enemy? To anyone who has any knowledge of naval affairs, it is clear from the constitution of the Fleet what is the intention of the Admiralty for the future. This country, like America, has paid off its battleships or put them into Reserve. We have kept aircraft carriers in reasonable numbers, so that these vessels are now the main unit of the Fleet. The statements of the First Lord and the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the attention which had been devoted to anti-submarine measures and to submarines, present and future. The whole picture is quite clear to anyone who has any knowledge of the seagoing Navy as distinct from the shore-based Navy, of which side, apparently, the hon. and gallant Member has the more knowledge.
In dealing with the question of Marines, the hon. and gallant Member asked how many were able to go to sea. If it is a question of having to send more Marines to sea, the answer is that they must be given jobs which will take them to sea. The hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well that the work of Marines at sea is limited and that, consequently, there are only limited opportunities for them to go to sea. This is a problem which has existed for all time. Next in his argument was the question of the rundown from, I believe, 12,000 to 10,000 men, involving a reduction of only 2,000. He then made a special appeal for the

officers and non-commissioned officers who would be affected. The majority of the 2,000, however, are from the rank and file, and are not officers or N.C.Os. Moreover, today, when there is no question of cutting down the numbers of officers or N.C.Os.—in fact, an appeal has been made to them to remain in the Service—my assumption is that there is no problem for these officers or N.C.Os. of the Royal Marines because there is no question of any of them leaving the Service.
I had no intention of taking part in this Debate until I heard the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest. I say to him that the Navy is a Service of which the Tory Party would have no intention of cutting down the cost to provide money for other Services, social and otherwise; it is perfectly obvious that they would want to spend more. I say to hon. Members opposite that the Navy is today in a better position to deal with present problems than ever before. We have the ships, large and small, and we have the men. There is no question of the Navy going immediately into action, or of any emergency just around the corner. The policy of the Government is to build up our Army, Air Force and Navy strength in collaboration with the United States of America, Western Union and the other countries interested in democracy and peace. Under those conditions we are playing a full part individually and collectively, and there is today no justification whatever for any denigration of the Navy.

4.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander R. H. Thompson: I ask for the indulgence which this House traditionally accords to a new Member making his first speech. I shall not detain hon. Members long but I should like to say before starting that my reason for choosing this particular occasion for speaking is that in my small way I have, perhaps, a little knowledge and experience of these high matters. As a Reservist and as a wartime rating and, subsequently, as a commissioned officer in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, the future welfare and well-being of the Navy are very close to my heart.
I have listened with the greatest attention to the Debate on these matters and


it is perfectly clear that there is no deep cleavage of opinion between one side of the House and the other on the question of the steps immediately to be taken. We all realise that a certain amount of money is available for spending and that it is up to us to try to spend it in the most ingenious and thrifty manner possible. The only real differences between us lie in questions of emphasis and whether we are laying the right emphasis on the right things. The two points which, at least to me, have emerged from the Debate were the anxiety expressed on both sides, firstly, on the question of manpower and reserves and, secondly, on the question of the adequacy or otherwise of our preparations to meet the submarine menace, which, everybody seems to be agreed, is the greatest purely naval problem which is likely to confront our strategists in any future war.
I wish to make a small point on the question of naval recruitment and reserves. I have heard only one other hon. Member, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble), refer to the Sea Cadets. In this organisation we have a very good recruiting ground for the Navy, but at present, unfortunately, boys who join the organisation do not necessarily find their way into the Navy as a result of their early keenness. At a time when, with all due respect to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey), there is a little anxiety about recruitment, it is a pity to do anything which discourages a volunteer from choosing the Service he would like to join.
I am not suggesting that it should be made possible for every sea cadet automatically to do his National Service in the Navy. We do not ask that because, if that were done, inevitably there would be a considerable element joining the Sea Cadet Corps for no other reason than that they would rather serve in the Navy than in the Army, or Air Force. But, if it could be arranged—I do not think it would be a matter requiring a great deal of money, or even great administrative inconvenience—for those boys who have proved themselves to be reasonably assured when the time of their call-up came that they could serve their time in the Service of their choice, it would be one of those small things, small in them-

selves, but which, taken with other expedients, would help immeasurably in recruitment.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of that. I know it is true that boys on achieving the age of 18, if they choose to join the R.N.V.R., may serve in the Navy, but the sea cadet organisation is a much more local affair and it is not always possible for a sea cadet to join the R.N.V.R. He may be a keen lad and it is a pity to have to say goodbye to him because he feels that if he stays where he is he may not get into the Navy. The morale of those who give their time to train these boys will be enormously fortified if they feel that they are training them for the Service of their choice. At present retired officers, petty officers and ratings who are doing this job often feel that they are giving up their time in order that their charges may eventually go into the Army, or the Air Force.
On the question of the adequacy of our preparations in the submarine menace we have heard much. The point has frequently been made, and there seems to be agreement, that the small type of standardised, rapidly produced, aircraft carrier, built in large numbers and properly equipped, is the answer to the problem rather than a much smaller number of large, costly and vulnerable, fleet carriers. I think that was the substance of the view put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) and other hon. and gallant Members. Speaking with a little operational experience of both Fleet and escort carriers in the last war, I think we should be very careful that we do not incur the reproach so often levelled at us of making ready for the next war by consulting the drill books of the last war. It occurred to me during the last war, when in effect we and the Americans attempted to create a large fleet of these small carriers, that their use then was purely transitional and we were having to use them then because we were so limited as to the bases from which aircraft could operate, particularly in the Pacific and also because at that time we had not sufficient properly equipped very long-range aircraft.
If our present system of alliances with our American and Western Union friends means anything, surely the question of


bases is very much better than it was before and throughout the world we should be able to operate very long-range aircraft from places which we were never able to use before. There is also the increasing complexity of modern naval aircraft. It is such that with all the "gadgetry" they have to carry it will not be possible to cram all this technical paraphernalia into the sort of small machine which could be operated efficiently from escort carriers. This technical question of everything getting bigger and more complicated is a factor which will make it very difficult to provide floating bases for this type of aircraft. I do not discount air power, but I think that the future in this matter of combating the submarine menace is going to be the operation from shore bases of very long-range aircraft and the carriers on which we were depending at the end of the last war will take a back seat because they were essentially a transitional force.
In combating the submarines themselves, there will be the question of the Navy providing highly specialised craft and the Air Force providing very long-range aircraft operating from a chain of bases, of course, in the closest co-operation with the Royal Navy. That is only a thought, but I hope that when we come to hammer out these things it will not necessarily be assumed that because the aircraft carrier rose to the zenith of its power at the end of the last war, those conditions will repeat themselves. I do not think they will.
I have made the two points I wished to make and, unlike many politicians, I now propose to resume my seat. Before doing so, I wish to thank the House for the indulgence they have granted me and to say, speaking as a "new boy," that I am most grateful for the many kindnesses and courtesies I have had from all hon. Members. Those kindnesses and courtesies have been by no means confined to hon. Members on this side of the House.

4.18 p.m.

Commander Maitland: I only rise for the purpose of asking what is, in effect, a long question, but I am certain it would be the wish of the House if I were to convey our congratulations to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, West (Lieut.-Commander Thompson). It is particularly

nice for me to be able to do so, because he has spoken with such knowledge and keenness about the Service with which we are both associated. The House always listens to ex-sailors when we talk about our own Service, although perhaps not always when we talk of other things. I wish to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on his excellent speech and I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will take careful note of the facts he mentioned and the suggestions and proposals he made. I hope we shall have many opportunities of hearing speeches of a similar nature from my hon. and gallant Friend.
The question about which I wish to speak is the pensioner Reserve. In dealing with the great problem of Reserves, I have never been able to discover how one can arrive at the size of what is really the most valuable Reserve of the whole lot. We speak on these matters, not, as the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) would have us believe, simply to cry "stinking fish" but merely to express our anxieties about certain points, which we have every right to express, and it is appropriate to say that I cannot find out for certain what is the strength of this pensioner Reserve.
It is obviously rather difficult to state its strength, because the people who belong to it have served their 21 years in the Navy and are gradually deteriorating physically as time goes on. I should also like to know whether care is taken to find out about the physical condition of ratings? I know that is done in the case of officers because from time to time I get an official letter asking me if I am quite well. That is all very nice and I fill in the form. Is the same action taken in regard to ratings who are also on the Reserve?
It is clearly impossible to give an exact answer. A friend of mine, who is a retired naval officer who took part in the first World War, went into business. He became rather interested to know, just before the beginning of the last war, what was likely to happen to him. He asked the Admiralty whether he would be called up and said he did not know what the rules were. He received the reply that their Lordships wished to inform him that all officers on the Reserve list would always be available for service, but for his private information those


under 70 would be called up first. I am not asking a frivolous question. Those of us who are anxious about the Reserves of the Navy are anxious for this information, and I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us a fair estimate of how many such Reserves he considers are available to us at this time.

4.23 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I felt that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), who opened this Debate, was doing a useful service to the House. It is most beneficial to have an opportunity to go over a Debate which has taken place previously and to deal with the points which have arisen in it which, with all deference to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) have not, one might feel, been completely answered. That is what I feel that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest did today. I should have imagined that such a speech would be welcomed by every Member of this House, particularly those who have had the opportunity and honour of serving in the Royal Navy. I was accordingly surprised at the tone of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East. My hon. and gallant Friend was making inquiries which he was perfectly entitled to make. He was in no way running down the Navy, the Government's policy or the Admiralty. He was asking for information which he was entitled to receive. Therefore, I could not understand the attitude which the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East took up.
There was one point with which my hon. and gallant Friend dealt about which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us a little more information this afternoon, that is what is happening to the Commandos and combined operations as a whole? It is a matter which I do not think was touched upon in the Debate on the Estimates. It is one of great importance and we should like to have further information upon it. In particular, who has taken over the duties which were previously performed by the Craft and Amphibious Materials Department? That is something about which the House would be grateful for a little information.
The hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East referred, although he was not perhaps altogether in order in doing so, to merchant shipbuilding. I do not wish to talk about that matter but to correct a misapprehension. The hon. and gallant Member appeared to consider that there was no anxiety in the shipbuilding industry today. I tell him that among the men on Clydeside there is the gravest anxiety as to the future of their industry, and I should like him to be fully aware of that fact.

Commander Pursey: Will the hon. and gallant Member allow me?

Commander Galbraith: The hon. and gallant Member had plenty of time. I am merely telling him a fact and there is no need for him to rise to make another speech. I do not intend to give way to him.
The hon. and gallant Member stated that it was obvious to any one what the seagoing Navy of the future was to be. I was sorry that he should have taken it upon himself to gibe at my hon. and gallant Friend by speaking of one who had been a distinguished officer in the Marines as belonging not to the seagoing Navy but the shoregoing Navy. I thought that was not in good taste. I have the greatest admiration for the Marines, which it appears that the hon. and gallant Member has not. They go to sea when they have the opportunity, they are our very good comrades at sea and we are all delighted to serve with them. The reduction in the number of Marines may not be very large—a mere 2,000, but 2,000 out of 12,000 is one-sixth. I suppose the hon. and gallant Member really does not worry very much about that; it is only just about the same reduction as that in the value of the £ since 1945, and that would not appear to matter to the hon. and gallant Member.

Commander Pursey: I will give the. hon. and gallant Member 16s. 8d. for every £ he has in his pocket.

Commander Galbraith: I hope that the points which have been raised in the Debate will be dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply. He did very well in that connection in the Debate on the Estimates, and I am certain that he will do as well today.

4.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). I should like to join in the congratulations which have been offered to the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, West (Lieut.-Commander Thompson), whose maiden speech was a model. It was easy, fluent, competent and thoughtful. I am glad that he has been received in a kindly way in the House and I say only this word of warning to him if I may, after five short years here. Do not let kindness kill one's cutting edge. We can have plenty of differences about policy in Debate but still retain personal courtesies.
Perhaps the House will allow me first to deal with the points which the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, West raised. I agree with him about the sea cadets. It is extremely unfortunate that young men who are keen and anxious to enter our Service are finding that when they reach the age when they are required to register for National Service there are no vacancies for them in the Navy. The hon. and gallant Member will, I am sure, appreciate the point that working with limited manpower, as the Royal Navy is doing, we can only increase the number of National Service entrants, which is really what the hon. and gallant Member is asking us to do, if we reduce the number of long-service men.
As to their respective value to the Royal Navy, there can be no doubt. It would be wrong to concentrate upon getting a larger number of National Service men to the exclusion of our continuous Service ratings. Therefore, Admiralty policy must be right in relying as far as possible on the continuous Service ratings. These men have a number of years training and are then available to the Navy and the country for many years. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that as far as possible we should, while National Service continues, try to give these young men a chance of going into the Service for which they have trained.
The situation is not quite so hopeless as the hon. and gallant Member thought. There is what is called List 2 of the R.N.V.R. I have been hastily searching

through my papers and I cannot find the one dealing with this point but I believe, speaking from recollection, that under List 2 one can join the R.N.V.R. and concentrate one's drills in a very short period of time, say over 14 days or whatever period is prescribed. By using his annual holiday for his training period, it is possible for the young man who is really keen to get into the R.N.V.R. and do his drills in that way, even although he lives in an isolated country village. I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member. I certainly hope that so far as the sea cadets are concerned, we shall be able to use as many of them as possible.
The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) who opened the Debate, touched on a large number of points that we also touched on last week. I fear that I cannot add a lot between last Wednesday and today to what I then said in relation, for example, to such things as the re-engagement bounty and reserves—whether they are sufficient, and that sort of question which he raised. I would like to deal in a little more detail with the question of the Royal Marines. The hon. and gallant Member asked whether the force is sufficient to cope with all the duties. I do not wish to make a debating reply, but it will be obvious to him that that depends on the duties to be placed on the Royal Marines. I would say that so far as the front-line strength of the Royal Marines is concerned, the duties that it is proposed should be placed upon them, if they are required, are such as can be carried by the proposed strength when it is run down to 10,000. That assurance I can give him without going into substantial detail.
The hard tip of the corps is, of course, the Commando Brigade which is at present in Hong Kong. They are a first-rate unit. Indeed, I think it is clear from the fact that they have been asked to go to Hong Kong, where there is a possibility of trouble, that they are really well trained for the job they are likely to be called upon to do.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Did they volunteer to go to Hong Kong?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that there is no difficulty in getting anybody in the


Royal Navy to volunteer to do a job when he is required to do it. So far as the division of the Combined Operations—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the hon. Member will forgive me, I did not realise that he had left the subject of the Commandos. Is he satisfied that the strength of one brigade is sufficient to meet the calls that may be made on the Commandos in an emergency?

Mr. Callaghan: So far as present day calls are concerned, yes; they can be and are being met. As to what would happen in an emergency, the hon. and gallant Member will know better than me that the R.M.F.V.R. is clearly the sort of Reserve which ought to be built up in order to provide additional units if they are needed. That would be the intention, that the Royal Marine Force Volunteer Reserve should be able to step in.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I do not wish to pursue this, because it is a minor point, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that Commando troops for service could be built immediately out of our Volunteer Reserve.

Mr. Callaghan: It depends on the training they have before they are required to undertake any front-line duties, but I should certainly expect that among people who are volunteers in a Reserve, and who therefore are extremely keen, there would be much valuable material which could be drawn on for the purposes which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Only after long training.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not dissent from that. I return to my point that, for the existing tasks the Commando strength of the Royal Marines is sufficient to supply not only the Commando brigade but also the seagoing detachments and the other tasks which are falling upon the Royal Marines at the present time.
So far as the landing craft is concerned, that section which was wound up is now under the control of the Director of Plans, and he has the responsibility for this particular work. I ask hon. Gentlemen to recognise that if we are to "comb our tail "we have to get rid of a lot of things which are extremely desirable. Looking through the Estimates I wonder whether

there are not more combinations of this sort which could be made in order to achieve the position where there are as few as possible ashore and as many as possible afloat. I am sure we shall not meet any opposition when we have to close down units of this sort, provided the Opposition is satisfied, as well as my hon. Friends, that the work is being properly done.

Commander Galbraith: Is the Director of Plans responsible for material?

Mr. Callaghan: That is something I cannot answer this afternoon, but to which I will give an answer later. Certainly the Director has taken over responsibility for this task.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but if he looks he will see that that section had a personnel of 39. If he looks at the Plans Division, on page 186, he will see that there is no increase at all in the personnel of that Division. Who, therefore, is in fact looking after this section which has been absorbed?

Mr. Callaghan: I repeat what I said, that the Director of Plans has absorbed the functions into his own Department.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Without any increase of staff?

Mr. Callaghan: That seems to reflect great credit indeed on the efficiency of Admiralty administration. We have been attacked about the size of Admiralty office and now the hon. and gallant Gentleman is complaining because it is not bigger.
On this question of Combined Operations I would say to the hon. and gallant Member that, as I understand it, that is the responsibility of the Minister of Defence. For example the hon. and gallant Member asked how many Army Divisions are being trained for Combined Operations. I would suggest that that is going far beyond my responsibility. If he wishes an answer on those matters it would be better to raise them during the general Debate on the Statement by the Minister of Defence, or to put Questions to the Minister.
I come to the point made about the calling up of Reserves and I consider that the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest is under a misapprehension.


I am told that the powers of recall of men released under age and service groups do not arise from the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946 but in fact the powers of calling up Reserves are based on the National Service Act, 1939 and other war-time Acts which cover the Regulars who were due to terminate their engagement, those for hostilities only, ratings who volunteered and National Service men who were called up. These Acts prescribe that their service shall terminate only when an Order in Council has been made. So in theory these men are still serving in the Armed Forces so long as a state of emergency continues, and until an Order in Council is made. I think therefore that the hon. and gallant Gentleman need have no fear that when the Act to which he referred expires in December these Reserves will cease to be available.
The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) asked questions about the strength of the pensioner Reserve. The strength of that Reserve is roughly 20,000 and they are asked at intervals—as the hon. and gallant Member is asked—as to the state of their health. I do not know what sort of replies Admiralty get, but I can well imagine some. As I said last time the Reserves generally are regarded by Admiralty as sufficient to meet an immediate need.
In my opinion the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest went extremely far when he said he doubted whether the Navy could meet an immediate crisis. I do not know on what information he based that statement but I very much doubt whether such information is reliable; because it certainly is not the information given to me, and I trust that my information comes from more reliable sources than that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. In fact I am told that the Navy could meet an immediate crisis, and not only that, but could also put to sea with the Reserve Fleet within a comparatively short time. I hope therefore that those hob-goblins which seem to be haunting the hon. and gallant Member will allow him to sleep a little better tonight.
In conclusion, I come back to the Royal Marines. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that they have been shaken up badly twice in the last five

years and a period of stability is quite obviously what they now need. I hope they will get it. They are doing their work extremely well. I hope that they will be able to shake down and carry on as the efficient Corps which we know them to be.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Resolutions reported:

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES

"That a sum, not exceeding £34,844,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

VOTE 2. VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY

"That a sum, not exceeding £12,083,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

Resolutions agreed to.

VOTE 4. CIVILIANS EMPLOYED ON FLEET SERVICES

Resolution reported:
That a sum, not exceeding £5,880,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of civilians employed on fleet services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

4.41 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: There is one question I should like to ask about what appears on page 40. There is a reference to allowances made for the Admiralty civilian shore wireless service both at home and abroad. There is an increase of some 60 persons in the home service and a reduction of 45 in the foreign service. That just about evens out the amount of money compared with what was spent last year. How has it happened that there is an increase in the home service and a considerable decrease abroad? I should have thought that the opposite might have been the case.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): I am sorry that I have not the answer with me at the moment, but I will certainly go into the question and let the hon. and gallant Gentleman have a reply. I am certain that there is a suitable reply. Obviously, these matters are gone into. Sometimes it is essential for the number of people on this work in this country to be increased and for those abroad to be decreased, because of the closing down of some establishment or a change-over in functions. This alteration may be because of the wireless functions abroad being shared between us and the Army and the Air Force. That is something which we are trying to bring about as much as we can.

Commander Galbraith: I hope that it is not accounted for by a mere transfer from abroad to home service.

Mr. Edwards: No.

Commander Galbraith: The figures are very much the same. One is up by £32,600 and the other is down by £31,800.

Mr. Edwards: I very much doubt whether it is due to that.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Resolution reported:

VOTE 6. SCIENTIFIC SERVICES

"That a sum, not exceeding £8,697,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a Grant in Aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

Resolution agreed to.

VOTE 10. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND REPAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD

Resolution reported:
That a sum, not exceeding £8,310,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

4.44 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: We have had a great deal of talk during the Debate last week and also today about married quarters. In the year 1950–51 we seem to be providing for only some 50 married quarters at home at an expenditure during this year of approximately £14,000. That would appear to be rather small. I know, of course, that Vote 15 gives us an increased number. It would appear that abroad we shall start work on only about 45 married quarters, and the sum of money set aside this year for that purpose is £20,000. I do not know whether that is all we propose to do, apart from Vote 15 to which I should like to refer later.

Sir Ronald Ross: There has been legislation applying only to Great Britain, in respect of loans in connection with married quarters. I should like an assurance that the building of married quarters in our establishments in Northern Ireland will not suffer. There we have some new naval establishments—one for the training of the Fleet Air Arm and the other the Anti-Submarine School—which are in grave need of married quarters. I should like an assurance that in Northern Ireland we shall not be at any disadvantage in regard to priorities for the building of married quarters.

Mr. W. Edwards: I rather think that Vote 10 and Vote 15 ought to be considered together when we discuss married quarters. No doubt the House will recall that the married quarters built by the Admiralty since the war came under Vote 10 until last year. But as a result of the legislation last year, we were enabled to draw a considerable amount by loan without touching the Navy Vote in order to meet the expenses of married quarters. The number of houses which we hope to start building in the next financial year for use as married quarters was announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary last week. It will be found that a considerable amount is being spent, and I am pleased that we have been able to increase our programme far more rapidly than we had hoped. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he should bear in mind both Votes when he criticises our programme of married quarters.
As no doubt the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) knows, we can only obtain housing loans under the Act if we build the married quarters in Great Britain. The Act does not apply to Northern Ireland, and we have restrictions placed upon us about where we build, even in Great Britain, before we are able to obtain money under the Act. The hon. Member can rest assured that we have the question of Londonderry in mind. Without making a promise, I think I can say that although the loans do not apply to Northern Ireland, the position there will receive attention.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: On page 157 there is the note:
To commence the reconstruction of the runways at a Naval Air Station and to continue similar work at others.
I want to draw attention to the position of the Naval Air Station at Crail which is now kept on a "care and maintenance" basis. I think it would be appropriate to ask what the Admiralty propose to do about that station and to invite the Minister to make a statement this afternoon. The position is that that air station was used to a considerable extent during the last war and previously. A year ago it was closed down. The station contains admirable buildings, messes, huts and dining halls which are probably unequalled in any other part of the Country. The whole of that valuable space and equipment is now standing idle except for a maintenance staff.
I have been representing to the hon. Gentleman for some time the national necessity to use that station for some more useful and appropriate purpose. Recently, he went to the length of agreeing that it might be used by the Territorial Army as a camp during the summer, but I do press him to consider whether there are not many other uses to which this splendid establishment could be put. There are boys clubs and youth movements of great variety, and Scottish movements of one kind and another, which would be immensely glad to have the opportunity of using such accommodation. I therefore beg the hon. Gentleman to consider the matter again.

Mr. W. Edwards: I think the hon. Gentleman has been able to make out a

case which is completely outside what is contained in Vote 10. He will remember that, when he began, he said there was an item in the Estimates concerning runways, and, if he wants to know what will happen about the runways at that station, I can tell him that it is not expected to spend any money on them at the present time.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Would he indicate on what other Vote he will make a statement which might answer my question?

Mr. Edwards: I am afraid there is no other Vote on which a statement could be made.

Commander Galbraith: The Civil Lord has referred to Vote 15. May I inquire whether we should keep our further remarks on Vote 15 until that Vote is dealt with, or whether we should make them now?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I thought Vote 15 was being discussed with Vote 10. I think it would be well to finish it off now, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman may only speak again with the leave of the House.

4.53 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: By leave of the House, I would like to make one or two short comments on Vote 15. The point of the matter is that, so far as married quarters are concerned, we are commencing to build abroad this year only 45 coming under Vote 10. This means 50 married quarters at home and 45 abroad under Vote 10, and 650 under Vote 15. The sum of money set aside for the 650 married quarters under Vote 15 amounts to £225,000, and I assume that the cost of these 650 houses will be somewhere in excess of a million pounds, so that it would appear that this year we are going to proceed only about a quarter of the way in the building of these quarters.
I appreciate that the Admiralty are getting on with this job of providing married quarters, which we all know is very much to be desired at the present time, and I am not criticising this Vote from that point of view at all. I am only asking if we could not go a little faster with the 650 new married quarters to be provided under Vote 15. It looks as if only a quarter of them will be completed


in the financial year which is just about to commence, and I should have thought that we could do better.

Mr. W. Edwards: So far as Vote 15 is concerned I should like the House to realise that we could not plan for this scheme completely until the Act was passed, but, since we are now able to spend far more money than was originally anticipated, we have taken immediate steps to improve and intensify the planning of those schemes which we had in mind but which we thought would take much longer to carry out. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we have carefully considered this whole question, but whether or not we can still increase the number of quarters to be provided will depend on the resources at our disposal.

Mr. Manuel: I should like to mention one short point. My fellow councillors in Ayrshire are very much perturbed about the aerodrome at Ayr. This question arises under Vote 10. There is much concern in the Ayr district about it. Local councillors have asked me if I can find out what are the future intentions of the Government in regard to this aerodrome, because they say that they can see no sign of development going on. Local opinion is that it should not be proceeded with but that the ground should be utilised for housing. Ayr Corporation want to use the land for this purpose, but they cannot get any guarantee that it will be available to them, and they are at present restricted in their housing developments.

Mr. Callaghan: So far as I know, there are no new works going on at this station. Vote 10 is concerned with new works, additions and alterations, and there is no proposal that I know of to include this airfield in any of these works.

Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Resolutions reported:

VOTE 11. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

"That a sum, not exceeding £4,963,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

VOTE 13. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

"That a sum, not exceeding £15,185,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

VOTE 15. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

"That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1949–50

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year."

[For details of Supplementary Estimate, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 2124.]

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES, 1950–51—REPORT [20th March]

VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

Resolution reported:
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 467,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of His Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

4.58 p.m.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I want to emphasise some matters which we raised in the Debate last week and also mention one or two others which were omitted. The first thing I want to do is to ask the Minister if he will do me the honour of reading what I said in the Defence Debate on the question of Colonial troops and also on the garrisons at Malta and Gibraltar. I would also ask him to pay particular attention to the corroboration of what I said which was supplied by many speakers in the Army Estimates Debate last week, but particularly the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) and


the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I hope that the Minister's eye will travel one paragraph further in the Defence Debate so that he may read what I said about the anti-aircraft defence of Great Britain, because I verily believe that a saving of manpower is possible there.
I want for a moment or two to review the task of the Army as I see it at the moment. It is, first of all, to meet the commitments of the "cold war" and, secondly, and of equal importance, to organise a structure which is capable of being expanded in the unhappy event of open hostilities. I would not criticise for a moment the way in which the present Army is carrying out its duties in the "cold war," but I and a great many other hon. Members are very much perturbed about the ability of the present Army to expand rapidly. Any preconceived ideas as to the time which will be available to us in which to expand should, in my view, be thrown overboard, because I agree with what General Eisenhower said that we shall have a maximum of 60 days in which to find ourselves at full fighting strength.
I shall not go into all the arguments adduced in regard to the lack of formations in Great Britain, but will simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that, based on my experience of three years of training higher formations on an intensive basis for overseas, one cannot take a training battalion which has been charged for a considerable period with the elementary duty of acting as a drill-instructor—for that is all that they are doing—and expect them to expand at a moment's notice, to take their place in a higher formation, and be fit to go to war.
It just cannot be done, and I see a very grave danger here. There are people who when they get to higher rank are apt to forget what it was like to serve in a battalion. I will quote one example of the sort of difficulty which I experienced as the officer commanding a Territorial regiment. Just to move men in vehicles from point A to point B in broad daylight—let alone at night—and expect them to find their way takes training and a certain amount of time. That is a very elementary example, and there are thousands of others.
I believe that something has to be done in the very near future. There must be a new approach to the whole of this problem. I want to make some suggestions, but time is short today, and I should be very pleased if I might discuss the matter at some time in the near future with the right hon. Gentleman or the Under-Secretary of State for War. I want to know whether a mobilisation scheme has been written. I hope it has because quite frankly, it was on the very excellent way in which that scheme had been written up and the trouble taken over it before the war that the expansion and absorption of Reservists went so smoothly in 1939. Are all the telegrams written out, addressed and ready to be sent off as they were in those days, and are the stores of clothing and equipment all labelled and ready in the various stores as they were at Tidworth in 1939, when men walked in at one end of the shed as civilians and walked out at the other looking like soldiers and when 2,000 to 3,000 men were fully equipped in 24 hours? Is that sort of mobilisation possible today? If it is not, something should be done about it.
I think there is a certain difficulty in relation to Reservists. In pre-war days one knew who the Reserves were, but today it is not so easy. Something ought to be done about that. There is another point which is also a hobby horse of mine. The hooves of hobby-horses are clattering down the Chamber at the moment. I shall go on putting these points forward because I know I am right. After all, I spent 30 years doing this so I ought to know a little about it. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will alter the present policy in regard to week-end staff courses, not, as I was misrepresented as saying on the last occasion, staff college courses.
Many brilliant staff officers who operated during the war have come to me time and time again and said, "May we please have a few week-end courses in order to keep us up to date?" That request has twice been refused me, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go into this matter, because one of the things from which we suffered as regimental officers in the early days of the war was the lack of trained staff officers, particularly in the junior ranks. I am sure that any Territorial officer


would agree with me over that, and I hope the matter will be looked into more seriously this time.
I am now going to trespass on what is not necessarily or entirely a political point, but, nevertheless, one which I think ought to be stated. I honestly believe that the present organisation of the infantry division is wrong. It is organised today on the same basis as in the latter days of the war when we were rich, people, when there was any amount of equipment and manpower, and when we were able to hold a continuous line in depth. We are now comparatively poor as regards equipment and manpower, and the conception of holding a continuous line has gone.
There must be a new conception, that is to hold defended localities, to sweep, the intervening space with intense fire and for the units to be extremely mobile (a) in order that the holes that appear may be caulked, and (b) that troops may be switched from one side to another. I remember that when I tried to get two battalions of ordinary organised infantry into lorries in order to get them to a place in a hurry it took nearly seven hours, even though the distance was only 10 miles. Infantry have to be trained on the basis of motor battalions before one can get that kind of mobility and flexibility.
In regard to that, it is vital that there should be no reduction in the number of wireless sets because on wireless sets depends flexibility and mobility. Men can be got on the move on warning orders and given executive orders while on the move. That is the way to get rapid movement and flexibility. I was rather disturbed when I saw that there was a reduction in the Vote dealing with wireless sets. I have known, in the latter days of the war, senior officers who refused to use a wireless set. They mistrusted the thing and thought it a modern invention. I believe that they would quite readily have gone back to the days of "gallopers." I warn the right hon. Gentleman that there will still be opposition to the use of wireless sets, but I hope that he will sit on such opposition very heavily, and that if he wants advice on the matter he will go to people who operate wireless sets and who can use

them all day as if speaking in the ordinary way.
I hope it will not be thought presumtuous of me to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the magpie characteristics of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. What I mean by that is that they may retain in their stores valuable equipment for which the troops have been asking for months. One can indent for certain equipment until one is blue in the face and yet get no reply. I will tell the House what actually happened in 1939. A part of my regiment was going to fight in France, and on their way out of the tank park they saw some packing cases being broken open. Out of those cases were taken telescopic sights for which they had been indenting for nine months in order that they might practise with them. They were handed those telescopic sights, which had been in the ordnance stores at Tidworth for over a year, when they were actually on their way to the front. I hope that somebody today will go through store dumps with a fine-tooth comb.
We are all agreed on the question of recruitment to the Regular Army and I do not propose to go through the arguments which have already been adduced in regard to pay. But I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not merely take the opinion of people in his own Department as to this matter. I implore him, when he visits units not only in this country but all over the world, to get the views of the men on the spot in regard to these matters. He will find that there will be warrant officers and senior N.C.O.s who will tell him and prove to him that after the 1946 rise in pay they were actually worse off. I know some commanding officers who have lost 10s. a day.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the evidence of the commissioned officers and N.C.O.s who have been affected and not the evidence of the Treasury officials whose job it is to see they do not get the money. I know the Treasury officials have to balance their accounts, but for years it has been the story in the Army that they give something with one hand and take it away with the other. I believe that if they were raised considerably we should get the recruits.
By the way, on a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may candles be brought in?
With regard to this matter of higher ranks and promotions, the Socialist Government have continued the policy originated by the Coalition Government of providing equal opportunity for promotion for everyone. I have been wholeheartedly in favour of that; but there is a danger in certain aspects of Socialist thought that the next step is to abolish rank. There is already beginning to exist a feeling that officers must be paid the same as the men and that the officer must have the same amenities and pay. That is very dangerous. What is the good of giving equal opportunity and then abolishing the thing for which that equal opportunity is given?
There is no greater responsibility for any man to bear than to have in his hands lives of his fellow countrymen. I suggest that for that alone, officers deserve extra amenities and pay. The matter was very well put in the film "Morning Departure" when Number 2 in the submarine said to the commander, "I am very good at carrying out orders but heaven forbid that I should ever be the one to have to make up my mind as to what are the right orders to give in a situation such as this." The extra pay is given to the man who, in a desperate situation, is able to make up his mind as to what the orders should be. That has often to be done when men are very tired and very hungry.
The Under-Secretary of State was gracious enough to say in a speech that he would welcome suggestions with regard to discipline and turnout. I thoroughly agree with what he said about turnout and cleanliness. I hope he realises that the question of discipline is simply one of teaching the individual to be able to discipline himself in order that he may control his body with his mind while he is undergoing the greatest test to which any human frame can be subjected. He is often hungry and dog tired, and he then has to be in a position in which the commands of his brain will be obeyed by his body in order that he can save not only himself but his comrades as well. That is the only object of discipline. If it is employed for any other object it is being abused. It is only by getting the mind to practise controlling the body in

times of peace that it will do so in times of great stress and strain. There is no counterpart to that in civilian life.
I was a little shocked to hear the new Secretary of State saying that when his predecessor visited the practice camps of anti-aircraft units last year, air co-operation was found to be complete. I would remind him of the story of the Bren gun which used to follow the Secretary of State for War about prior to 1939, and how he was kept dallying in the cookhouse because it had not yet arrived from the station. Let him beware of that. As poacher turned gamekeeper, I fully realise that these things are done. When the right hon. Gentleman said that there was complete air co-operation I happened to make some inquiry. I discovered that, on at least one occasion out of a whole fortnight, the only day on which an aircraft was seen at a camp was the day on which the Secretary of State visited it.
I was very glad to hear that a welcome is to be extended to National Service men coming out of the Army. That welcome would be wholehearted, spontaneous and effective in places where there are good drill halls. I am lucky in my constituency. I know of beautiful drill halls all over the country, built in the days of Tory misrule. Will the Secretary of State, for his own benefit and that of everybody else, make inquiries and discover how many drill halls there are? Before June or July when these men come from the Army, will he take immediate steps to see that there is some place for them at which they can be welcomed?
I regret that there does not appear to me to be any concrete plan for altering the present situation with regard to the Army. We have been going on this basis now for nearly four years, and time is running out. With the run-down of the Regular Forces going on at its present rate, we shall be in queer street by 1952. I pray the right hon. Gentleman to realise that something different has to be done. I should be more content if I thought that in any of the speeches made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, there was some idea of a new plan for dealing with this situation, which has been described so ably by many speakers from both sides of the House. I do not believe the solution is to continue as we are doing now. If we go on like this until 1952 we shall be in the soup, and very thick soup at that.
The right hon. Gentleman has an advantage over his predecessor. Whereas his predecessor had a sailor in command of the Ministry of Defence, he has a soldier of at least two and a half years service at the War Office. I, therefore, trust he will be able to get more consideration for the Army than it has had in the recent past from the Ministry of Defence.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I should like to follow the remarks which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) put so cogently with regard to the rapid extension of the Army in the event of an emergency. At the moment, it seems that the Government have put all their money on there being no emergency for some years to come. What is to happen in the course of the next year or two? Territorial Battalions and units will be receiving National Service men from June onwards. If, in the meantime, an emergency comes, those units will be wholly incomplete. No doubt it will be possible, and no doubt plans have been prepared, to make them up from men who have been released from the Forces and who have not taken up voluntary engagements.
We understand that that will happen, but of course it means that in the meantime there is no immediate Reserve ready for action. Can the Government tell the House how long it will be before these Territorial Reserves are really ready for action in the event of an emergency? How long will that be? I suggest that these Reserves will be infinitely more useful and much more ready in accordance with the extent to which they are composed of volunteers—probably mainly composed of volunteers, but if possible wholly composed of volunteers. To what extent can that be done?
One of the first things which must be examined very closely is the method by which the arrangements will be made for the release of the National Service men into the Territorial units. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing has said, this is of paramount importance—this question of the spirit in which these National Service men go into their part-time duties. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that much devoted staff work had been done on this subject, and

indeed that is so. I understand that a complete survey has been made and that Territorial units have been told of the entrants they are likely to receive within the next year. Indication has even been given of the various corps and services which they may be expected to enter. They have gone into the most minute detail. As is indicated in the White Paper on the Army Estimates, when releases are being made,
batches of National Service men will pass to the Territorial Army every fortnight.
I believe the Ministry have gone to such great detail that instructions have been given to the effect that these men are to arrive between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. on a given day each fortnight.
The question which immediately presents itself is: Will this be an efficient arrangement? Responsibility is being placed wholly on the despatching units. Possibly that is quite right, because the despatching unit can be more effectively disciplined, but there is a danger that the despatching units, particularly if they are overseas, may tend to over-insure. We may find that men are being despatched to their depots and are hanging around the depots for 10 days or perhaps even a fortnight before this particular day in the fortnight when they are to be released. I fully appreciate the difficulties involved, but I wonder whether the men who are being released will arrive in the very best spirits if they are kept hanging about the depots for a certain time before they are sent for their release to the headquarters of the Territorial unit. It does not seem to me that such a method would predispose them very much for voluntary service.
It may be said that by the time they are despatched to the Territorial unit they will have made up their minds whether or not to volunteer, and that raises a point about which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say something tonight. Is it the case that a National Service man can volunteer only during the period of his whole-time service? Under Section 3 of the Act of 1947 all that is said is:
… accepted by a Service Authority as a volunteer
during the period of whole-time service. Surely a great proportion of National Service men will not know what their commitments in private life are going to


be. Many of them will be going back as apprentices to various professions and others will be embarking on entirely new jobs. They will not know, during their whole-time service, what their civilian commitments are going to be. The tendency will be for them to say, therefore, "Let us get out first and have a look to see what time we shall be able to spare."
Another factor, of course—and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to confirm this—is that different units will make different demands on their National Service men. After all, there is a fairly flexible requirement imposed on National Service men. It is anticipated that they will have to put in five days—20 parades—out of camp in addition to their 15 days in camp each year. How that five days out of camp is arranged by the unit will vary to a very considerable extent, of course, with the nature of the unit. The National Service man will, therefore, wait to see what are the requirements of a unit before he makes up his mind whether he wants to be a volunteer and to have a larger responsibility and a larger obligation, or whether he wants simply the minimum that the unit will impose. That is why I urge very strongly that National Service men should be given the opportunity to take on volunteer responsibilities after they have been released from their whole-time service.
I find that Territorial units are not absolutely certain if the National Service man will be entitled to the full bounty, whether he volunteers during his whole-time service or afterwards. I thought it was fairly clear that the National Service man who volunteers during his whole-time service will be entitled to the whole bounty, but I find that it is not regarded as absolutely clear and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear today. I hope he will also say whether the man who volunteers after his whole-time service has been completed—if the right hon. Gentleman permits him to do so—will be entitled to the full bounty.
There has been another obstacle to recruitment to the Territorial Army—the obstacle of the way taxation is being handled. I should have thought that the War Office and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have got together and made quite clear to the tax inspectors

and collectors exactly what the incidence of taxation would be and what would be the P.A.Y.E. group of the various people in the Territorial Army. I find that that has not always been the case, however. Notices have been sent out to members of the Territorial Army informing them that their P.A.Y.E. group has been changed because it had been assumed that they were to be paid what I believe the Army Reservist receives as pay. I hope that will be corrected at a very early date and that that sort of thing will not be allowed to recur, because it infuriates the volunteer and it will discourage further recruitment.
It would, of course, be very much better if the bounty payments to the Territorial Army—that is to say, the £9 plus the 30s. to which a man is entitled—were wholly exempted from Income Tax. We do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to say anything definite about that tonight, but I suggest that he should anticipate the Chancellor's Budget statement by making representations to the Chancellor on that subject so as to make quite certain that it is taken into consideration. It would certainly have a very great effect and it would simplify in the mind of the ordinary man who has to pay his taxation through P.A.Y.E. what are his commitments and what he will get out of his service.
I return to the point from which I started. It seems to me that the most important thing of all for the Territorial Army is that there should be the maximum number of volunteers. I believe we shall get that number only if we allow people to volunteer not only during the period of their whole-time service but also afterwards. We must allow the volunteer to see what it exactly means to be a volunteer as compared with being just an ordinary National Service man. So I have no doubt that commanding officers will say, "Come along. Attend a few parades and a few socials, and then decide for yourselves which of the two you will be." I have no doubt that in many units it will be the exception rather than the rule to have National Service men rather than volunteers. This is the aim to pursue, and I believe it can be achieved by good administration, and by explaining exactly to the National Service men before they leave their full-time commitments, what are the advantages of Territorial service.


In this way we shall create a proficient Reserve.
I conclude with one more question. How soon is it expected to be before the Territorial Army will be complete and ready to be called out in its complete form?

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I feel that the time is approaching when we should know. What is the Army which is being built, when is it going to be built, and what is it to be built for? I appreciate that these are rather general questions—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Jolly good ones.

Mr. Paget: After the First World War we had the 10–year rule, that is to say, that the preparations of the Armed Forces should be upon the basis that we should not be engaged in a major European conflict during the ensuing 10 years; and that was moved forward one year each year. It seems to me that we are doing something like that on a rather hand to mouth basis. It may be some exaggeration to say that the information which we receive each year from the Estimates can be summarised by saying this: we have not got an Army that can fight this year and we shall not have an Army that can fight next year, and that progresses from year to year. [Laughter.] Well, we really have got to think out what is the shape of the Army that we are going to have and when we are going to have it.
The present sort of situation, I feel, is probably inevitable. When we run down a great Army and have to create another one, there is a period—and it has to be a fairly long period—when we have not got an Army which can take part in a major conflict, and when we know we are not going to have an Army that can take part in a major conflict, for some time. But there must be a termination of that period, and the first thing which we want to know is simply this, What is the contribution which we are going to be expected to make, and which we ought to make, to the defence of Western Europe? I believe that is a contribution which has to be expressed in terms of divisions, and in terms of divisions which are immediately ready.
Here I should like to reinforce what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) with regard to the composition of divisions. Our continental Allies will have larger ground forces than ourselves. We have to make other contributions. From their geographical position they will have a lot of fairly immobile troops—walking troops—instead of mechanically borne troops. It seems to me our contribution must be, and should be almost entirely, of mobile troops, because that is what European defence will require from us.
I am inclined to think the mobile division which tends to be the old infantry division put into trucks, is still tied up with the organisational ideas that were appropriate to an infantry division. In the first place, I believe it is much too large. I think that the mobile division should be much smaller than the old infantry division. I think the Russians have the right idea there, and I believe their smaller divisions are much more proficient organisations today. Secondly, if they are to be effectively mobile, it is not sufficient just to have trucks. We must have armoured troop carriers which can make them mobile right up to the point of fighting, instead of some miles back.
That is an aspect of the matter that wants considering to a very considerable degree, but the most important aspect of these divisions is, I think, that they should be here: we cannot defend Western Europe with divisions which are not there. If the divisions which we create are designed to cover not only the defence of Western Europe but all our Colonial commitments as well, then it is open to the Russians at any time, by creating trouble in outlandish corners of the world, to disperse all our forces and to weaken the whole position here.
It seems to me, therefore, that there must be—and I raised this consideration in the previous Debate—a force, which need not be large, and a much less expensive army, to deal with Colonial commitments, and which should be raised and kept in Africa or elsewhere and should be sufficient for covering its area; and the divisions which we raise here should be retained in Western Europe. Further I suggest that those divisions ought to be under the


command of a Western European High Command, whatever form it eventually takes, and in the same way there should be, as there will have to be, German divisions under that same command. Because Germany must not have an armour industry—from a defence point of view it would be far too vulnerable and from a security point of view it would be highly undesirable—these should be armoured with American armour, supplied with French services, and form part of that army of which our divisions were units. Divisions of Germans serving on equally honourable terms with the divisions of Englishmen in the army of Western Europe, would be a danger and a threat to no one.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. and learned Gentleman is elaborating an argument for bringing Germans into this army he is talking about. Would he go so far as to bring in the Japanese, too?

Mr. Paget: That is dealing with quite a different problem somewhere else. I am dealing with the problems which are at home at the moment, and I do not wish to go on indefinitely fighting the last war. I hope that we shall not have to fight any more wars, but we shall only avoid doing so by being sufficiently strong to discourage anyone else from starting one. I am perfectly certain that we shall not start one; we have no intention of doing anything of the sort.
May I conclude by saying that I do not expect an answer now? I am not putting this forward as a criticism. In this change-over period of running-down one Army and raising another, there had to be a period of comparative helplessness. When is it coming to an end; what is the shape of the Army which we are desiring to build, and when shall we have it? When shall we have—and until we get it through Western Europe we cannot really know—this model which we have to create?

5.41 p.m.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I find myself in very considerable agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and in very great agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer). The Debate on the previous stages of the Army Estimates was, I think, notable for

the fact that whereas many points were raised by hon. Members, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), and some of them were of not inconsiderable importance, the Under-Secretary of State for War in his reply seemed to me to fail to deal adequately with any of them. He skated round a good many; he mentioned several, but with others he did not deal at all. I wonder whether that was because he was unable or unwilling to deal with them and to make a statement about them, or simply because the Government have no policy at all regarding these matters.
One of the most important matters has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing on the question of what part we are to play in the defence of Western Europe. I feel certain that the part we are to play is not merely to be obtained by talking about it. I hope very much that the part we play is not to be merely to provide equipment for our allies, although that is an important matter. I am not now going into the question of the composition of formations or divisions which we may employ if we are to get wholehearted co-operation from our allies in Western Europe. We must remember that they were all defeated and occupied countries in the last war, and that they start from scratch. We must be prepared to provide a British contingent.
In the former Debate on the Army Estimates, I and various other hon. Members asked: "Have we a definite plan for what is going to be the strength and composition of our contingent for the defence of Western Europe?" That is a very important point. We cannot possibly take chances and go on living from hand to mouth, just saying, "Oh, well, when the time comes, of course, we shall do something about it." We must have a definite plan, and for that plan we must have proper organisation and proper readiness. I hope that we shall get a definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman about that today.
Another point which was raised was our lack of any organisation for war; that is to say, organisation of the available trained men in Service units and formations. I myself raised the question


of the formation and use of recruit training units for the elementary training of the men called up. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, we cannot expect a unit to be ready to train as a unit when it consists only of cadres of Regular instructors and a large number of recruits, not even at one stage of training but in various stages of training from the elementary upwards. I would say that the use of what are nominally Service units, which would appear in the Army List, if there was one, as Services units for recruit training purposes, is definitely unsound. It is impossible for such a unit consisting only of a cadre of instructors and a lot of recruits to be trained as a unit and to take its place with other units in the higher formations and be ready for war for a considerable number of months.
There is one matter of detail which was not referred to the other day. It would cost no money, and it is a matter which I think should be gone into and reformed. That is the method of calling up National Service men. Unless I am misinformed, which I do not think I am, they are called up fortnightly—fortnightly driblets of recruits coming into barracks and into training units. That is a completely uneconomic way of dealing with these recruits. A fortnight's intake comes in. During their first fortnight they are probably vaccinated, and, with various things of that kind, have hardly started training at all. They are in an elementary stage of training when another fortnightly lot come in; but they are just a little too far ahead for the new entry to be placed with them, and that is a waste of time.
It is also far more expensive and extravagant in the use of regular instructors. It requires many more instructors to deal with these fortnightly driblets than if these recruits were called at two- or three-monthly intervals, and formed straightaway into squads with the necessary instructors. The system of fortnightly calling up appears to be done only for the convenience of the Minister of Labour, and I suggest that it is an uneconomic and unsound way of calling up the National Service men.
Another point raised was that of regular recruiting and the supply of Regulars in the Army. The Memorandum on the Army Estimates, and the

Secretary of State for War himself deplored the downward trend of regular recruiting and the lack of Regular soldiers. He emphasised the increasing difficulties likely to come along in 1951 and 1952, yet none of the suggestions made for dealing with that situation, such as questions of pay, conditions, bounties, uniforms, employment after discharge or transfer to reserve, pensions reform and prospects mentioned by various hon. Members were adequately dealt with. Some were mentioned and skated round, and any question of an increase in pay was rather dismissed as impracticable. There was no question of dealing with some of the other matters at all.
The Secretary of State himself appeared to have no ideas on the subject of how this deficiency of Regular troops was to be dealt with, beyond perhaps an improvement of married quarters—which, I would say, was welcome on all sides of the House. We hope very much that that will be proceeded with, and that it will be effective; but it will not be effective by itself, and will not produce the necessary Regular recruits that we want. Apart from that, so far as we can make out, everything will continue to drift, and the Secretary of State presumably hopes that things will be better, that some turn for the better will come along in 1951 or 1952, but gives us no idea how that turn for the better will be initiated or will take effect.
Not one word was said by the Under-Secretary about Empire co-operation. I suggest that this is a tremendously important point. Do not the letters C.I.G.S. still mean Chief of the Imperial General Staff? Is there still an Imperial General Staff, and is it functioning? Is it not a matter that ought to be referred to by any Secretary of State for War in a speech on the Army? What are the military relations with the other great countries of the Commonwealth and the Empire? I suggest there should have been some reference to that, as there should also have been a reference to the suggestion that there might be a very material increase in the numbers of African troops to take the place, to some extent, of the Indian Army which we have lost.
Very little was said about the reduction of War Office and headquarter staffs. I think it was said to be under


consideration. Again, very little was said about possible administrative economies. I do not hesitate to say that the staffs, not only of commands, but of lower formations also, are double what they used to be not so very many years ago. Is there any reason for that now in peacetime? Very many services and departments are greatly swollen in numbers compared with what they used to be. The question is not "What is desirable?" I can well imagine that from some points of view many of these great increases are necessary. But what is essential? In these days we cannot afford anything that is not essential. By all means let there be a potentiality of expansion in case of war, but let us have the minimum that is necessary and essential now in peace-time.
The Under-Secretary rather assumed in his speech, I think, that when I referred to the possibility of economies in various non-combatant or semi-combatant Services and Departments which did not directly affect fighting value I was referring to technical services such as, for instance, the R.A.O.C. or R.E.M.E. Certainly I was not referring to them. I am very well aware that those technical services are very necessary. But it is another question whether some economies could not be made in those services by means of enlisting already skilled men, either on a militia or a Territorial basis, which would be cheaper than having them full-time Regulars or National Service soldiers.
I did refer to the Army Educational Corps, but my suggestion most certainly was not that it should be abolished. My suggestion is definitely, however, that it might be reduced. It is very much increased in numbers compared with what it was in peace-time not so many years ago. Everybody recognises, of course, that it is necessary to deal with what I might call primary education so long as so many men come into the Army who, for one reason or another, have not been properly educated in their schooldays. They must be educated up to the stage at which they can assimilate their military instruction, if nothing else. But whether higher instruction than that is necessary, or whether we can afford it, is another matter altogether.
The Under-Secretary said in his speech that many of these matters were under consideration, or being inquired into. Exactly the same thing was said in the Debate on the Army Estimates last year—that many things were being inquired into. Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing, I suggest that what we want now is not inquiry into these things but decision to take action, and very early action, to deal with them if the Army is to be fit for its responsibilities in the very near future.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sure that we are all greatly indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) for initiating this Debate. He asked the Secretary of State to read his speech in the Defence Debate, and I am sure the Secretary of State will do so. I have been reading a comment by a would-be Member of this House on the very speech to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. I have before me the comments of a former Member of this House, Commander King-Hall, a gentleman whose views on these matters we all treat with respect. He referred to the speech in which the hon. and gallant Member outlined the views which he today commended to the Secretary of State. I think that this quotation is very relevant. It will at least show the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the speech he delivered in that Defence Debate was taken account of by interested military opinion in the country.
It appears that his speech on Defence has created a certain amount of depression, to judge from what Commander King-Hall says in his "National News Letter." He says:
I defy anyone who reads this Debate with care and attention to find in it a hint, let alone a clear statement about what we are trying or hoping to defend.
I believe that in appealing to the Secretary of State to clarify this position the hon. and gallant Member and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) have directed the attention of this House to a very important question. I believe that the Secretary of State has a duty to clarify the situation in his reply to the Debate today, because we are all asking exactly what rôle will the Army, for


which we are voting this formidable sum of £304 million, play in the next war?
Commander King-Hall goes on:
Members of Parliament of all parties appear to be under the delusion that if military arrangements are made to defend certain frontiers or areas against the possibility of an armed attack by the Russians that is the end of the matter, and we can all sleep safely in our beds.
Then he comes to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing, and says:
A typical example of this 19th century—or perhaps I should write 18th century—attitude to defence was the remark of the Brigadier who sits for Worthing. He said: 'The planning and the organisation for the possibility of a "hot" war has to be proceeded with while active operations are being put into effect in the face of a "cold" war. The two things are, of course, totally different, and therefore there is a dual form of planning in progress'.
I should like to know whether there is a "dual form of planning in progress," and exactly what it is. Unfortunately, not only were these criticisms directed against the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing, but against the Minister of Defence.
I ask the Secretary of State to deal with this criticism.
Unfortunately, there is every reason to suppose that this astonishing and alarming mental attitude is shared by 90 per cent. of the gallant Member's colleagues, including the Minister of Defence himself. If I do the Minister of Defence an injustice, I can only invite you to read the speech and see if you can find buried among its platitudes any evidence that the Minister of Defence knows what he is trying to defend or how he is trying to do it.
We are entitled to ask the Secretary of State to give us some outline of his conception of the Army's role in some future war.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider seriously the questions that have been put to him. We have had arguments showing that we need a vastly larger Army if we are to take part in a possible Continental war against the Russians. I think that Members are once again making the same mistake of thinking in terms of the previous war.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I am certain that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer)did not suggest, and I certainly did not suggest, that what was wanted was a vastly larger Army. We suggested that we wanted an Army organised for war. We have

more men now than we had at the beginning of the 1939 war, but very much less organisation.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I always listen to the hon. and gallant Member with great respect. He has touched on the essentials of this problem. What kind of Army can we send to Europe in the event of another war, and how can it be equipped for modern methods of warfare without burdening the finances of the country? I ask the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield to realise the sort of thing we shall be up against in the event of having to send an expeditionary force to the Continent. This is an estimate, by this informed correspondent of military affairs, of the kind of Army that will be needed. He states:
What we need is a West European army and air force. The staff at Fontainebleau have decided that in order to defend the West against possible attack by the 120 divisions which the Russians have in a state of mobilisation, we require 40 divisions and 35 air groups.
We are talking of sending an Army to take part against the Russians who have 120 divisions. I do not see how we can face up to that problem without an enormous additional military expenditure, and without an enormous drain on the manpower of our essential industries that are trying to meet the nation's requirements.
If we are to build up this new Army, from where will the manpower come? It cannot come from agriculture, because agriculture needs all the men it can get to grow more food. It cannot come from the mines, because the mining industry is already depleted in manpower. I hope it is not suggested that it should come from the building industry. I hope the Secretary of State will say exactly what section of the population is to provide the manpower to build up this formidable new Army. Let us make no mistake about it. The Russians have a comparatively inexhaustible source of manpower, and if we are thinking of tackling them we are up against a very big job indeed.
We have to remember that Hitler, with all his powerfully organised German Army could not do it. Now, apparently, we are to turn to Western Europe to see if she can be organised in such a way as to meet these 120 Russian divisions that


are presumably ready for an attack on the West. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) comes along with the suggestion that we should now organise the Germans. When he made that suggestion in the last Debate I asked what we fought the last war for, and when I analysed his proposal in an article, the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) said how Goebels must be laughing in hell at the very thought of Germany being organised in the West to attack the Russians in the East.
I ask the hon. and learned Member whether he is going to bring the Japanese into this international army to fight the Communists. It must be remembered that presumably the Communists must be fought not only in Europe but in China as well. The hon. and learned Member is faced with the proposition that after fighting a great war to prevent Hitler destroying Russia and the Japanese overrunning the East, we are now in a position of having to organise the Huns and the Japs to take part in a global war.

Mr. Paget: It may be that it is as important at one time to prevent the Russians over-running the Germans and the Russians over-running the Japanese, as it was before to prevent the Germans from over-running the Russians and the Russians from over-running the Japanese. It is a question of time. What we want is peace. Peace means a stable world. Wherever frontiers are at the present moment, we want to make them stable.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. and learned Member's conception of making a stable world is to organise the Germans, the Japanese and the natives in Africa to wage war on the gallant ally on whose side we fought only six years ago.
I suggest that we are up against difficulties and contradictions that cannot be solved, when talking about the number of men we can put into the field and the preparations we have to make in the event of taking part in a world war against the Communists. I do not see how we can possibly get the manpower without taking labour away from our essential key industries. All the arguments in this Debate have been on the assumption that there is no Air Force. Can it be imagined how we can move this gigantic Army without the Air Force? It

is indiscreet to mention the atom or hydrogen bombs. They are put, as it were, into water-tight compartments, and the result is that we are in a state of absolute unreality.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War how his own constituency of Dundee can be defended by the Army in the next war. From what we have heard in the course of these Defence Debates, it would appear that in the first month of the next war we are going to be submitted to the merciless bombing. Such an exponent of air warfare as Viscount Trenchard said we must be prepared for 20 million casualties in the first month. If our industrial areas are completely disorganised through bombing, how is the Army going to be moved about, and how is the intricate organisation set up to deal with manpower to function under those circumstances?
I think it was Bernard Shaw who once said that the military people were always rehearsing for something that never was not likely to happen and if it did come off, was not likely to be anything like the rehearsal. The fact has to be faced that in the first month of the next war there will be such an enormous complication of events in this country, that it will make all the theoretical plans absolutely ridiculous. I invite the Secretary of State for War not to take refuge behind platitudes, and not to dismiss me as a person who does not matter. These are the questions which are being asked by the people. They want to know how the Army is going to be moved about, and how it is going to be supplied. How are the munitions to be despatched to the Army and how are the civilian population to be kept down following the absolute chaos that must inevitably result if an island of 50 millions is mercilessly bombed from the air?
I should like to put another question to the Secretary of State for War. Can he tell us something of the preparations which are made for bacteriological warfare? That is a subject which is never mentioned in our Debates, and we are entitled to hear something about it. We should like to be told of the preparations that are being made, though I assume that it will be out of order to refer at any length to the subject.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not know whether the item occurs


in the Army Estimates, but the hon. Member is only entitled to deal with those matters which appear in the Estimates or which relate to them in some way.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I presume that some authority is interested in bacteriological warfare, and all I wish to ask in passing is whether the Secretary of State knows anything about it. If he does not know anything about the subject, what on earth is he Secretary of State for? Perhaps he will attempt to enlighten us. It is part of the duty of the Secretary of State for War to be slightly interested in war with a kind of interest in the Air Force and the Navy.
I can understand that Rules of Order in this House do not permit of questions sometimes being carried to their logical conclusion, but I should like to ask my right hon. Friend if he can tell us anything about the plans for dealing with sabotage in the Army. It is rather a curious thing that while the Communists are being cleared out of the highest posts in the Civil Service, particularly in the Ministry of Supply, they can still go into the Army, and are even conscripted into it. What measures are being taken to prevent the Communists entering the Army? It is ridiculous that the Communists in the Army should be aware of all our secret weapons of which, no doubt, they make careful note. If we have a new gun or a new kind of tank, how are we going to keep knowledge about it from the conscripted Communists?
I asked the previous Minister of Defence about this, because it seems wrong, not only that should the Communists be allowed into the Army, but that they should be conscripted into it, and, in addition, have access to our secret weapons and secret plans. Thus they are in a position to hand information about them to a potential enemy. There has been a great deal of criticism of the way in which some of our secrets have been conveyed to the enemy. Would the Secretary of State tell us if he is in a position to find out if the Russians have 120 or 150 divisions, and if so, how does he get that information? When a person called Dr. Fuchs betrays the country by acting as a spy, and hands over important military secrets to the Russians he is regarded with horror, but are we at the same time spending our money in bribing

or trying to bribe Russians, Poles, Hungarians and others to betray their countries?
Those are some of the questions which I want to put to my right hon. Friend, and I hope his answer will contain an element of realism. I hope we are not going to have a series of platitudes. My right hon. Friend is a man of very broad intelligence and gifted with a great imagination. Will he take this opportunity to tell us exactly the role the Army is going to play in the next war, and whether he can possibly equip all these divisions without making nonsense of his Socialism? Can we go on spending millions year after year without starving the social services and reducing the standard of life of the workers of this country? I suggest that that problem is insoluble, because if we are going to pile up all these millions year after year we are going to drive the standard of life of the British worker steadily down. I do not know how that can be reconciled with the professions of Socialism of the British Labour Party.

6.18 p.m.

Brigadier Head: It seems to be my fate in many of these Debates to follow the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I have not followed him on all occasions, because he has already made six speeches on the Defence Estimates, and he has still time to make a seventh even after today. I do not think he will expect me to follow him in his remarks, but his argument to the Secretary of State, which implied that Communists should not be conscripted into the Army, is ingenious, because if it were made a rule that no Communists were to be conscripted into the Forces surely he would swell the ranks of the Communists very considerably indeed.
I am always struck by the way in which the hon. Gentleman mixes up a certain amount of some fanciful Celtic thought with an underlying current of a good deal of unconstructive sense, and my feeling is that he spends most of his time tearing up whatever anybody is trying to do without making any suggestion as to what should be done. The logical deduction from that is that the hon. Member would like to see us completely unprotected in the future, and the logical result of that would be a Communist regime in this


country. If that is what he is after, he must tell his constituents, but if he is not after that, he is wrong continually to disparage everything we are doing to try to retain our safety and independence in the future. To ridicule those things, without putting another suggestion in their place, is quite easy; in fact, it is easy to be a fairly destructive denigrator of all the defence preparations in the country. I hope that the hon. Member, with his very fertile brain, will sometimes sit down and think out the logical result of all that he advocates in this House regarding defence. The result may keep him awake for a night or too, realising the political path that he has taken in this House.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. and gallant Member has made a very fair point. In this Debate we are dealing purely with the Army Estimates and I would not be in order if I dealt with what I believe would be a constructive programme of real defensive measures, not a romantic and sham defence, for the people of this country.

Brigadier Head: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance of telling us what his recommendations are upon the Civil Estimates which will come up later.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) gave the House some very good suggestions of a practical nature regarding the Army, and perhaps the Secretary of State will have an opportunity of referring to one or two of them. At any rate, I hope he will be sympathetic to the wireless suggestion, in view of his very considerable experience of that instrument during the war. If he had been a real galloper, he would have put a considerable strain on the horse-flesh of Britain.
Sometimes we attempt to let the Royal Air Force intrude into this Debate. I would commend one or two suggestions to the Royal Air Force speakers who are waiting to start their Debate. I would first suggest to the Secretary of State for War that he keeps his eye on the question of air co-operation between the Services. The matter has already been mentioned here, particularly in regard to anti-aircraft operations. I know the experience of the late Secretary of State for War in regard to aircraft. The Army may

have a reputation for eyewash and is much criticised, but I suggest to those members of the Royal Air Force who are feeling "cocky," that we can accuse them of "skywash."
When I hear the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in these Debates, I wonder what he is doing over there. There was one point which I thought he overstressed but which was of importance in considering Army matters. Some Members seem to want an Army on the "never-never" system. We are always going to have an Army two years ahead from the date of the Estimates. That attitude is projected from one year's Estimates to the next, and so on. That is the danger of the present system and that is the central thought of most of the criticisms on this side of the House. Our worries and our repeated questions to the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman—and there have been three since the war finished—have been more or less identical with that criticism. I think most of my hon. Friends will agree that in none of the Debates have we ever had a really constructive suggestion about how the difficulties which we have outlined are to be met. We have seen suggestions outlined by us three or four years ago, at last creep into the Memorandum on the Army. That is a small triumph but it is as far as we have got.
At the risk of repetition I would say once again, that if we were to boil down all our remarks about the Army into one distilled drop of criticism, it would be that we are most worried by the over-dilution of a small and decreasing long-service element into a too large short-service element. We have been saying that since 1945. I should like to put a number of figures before the House. This is the last opportunity we shall have before the 1951 Estimates. The average rate of recruiting between 1928 and 1937 was 27,000 a year. Today it is 23,000 a year. At the present rate it will be 17,000 for the coming year. That is a decreasing curve for the long-service men, who are the whole basis of the Army. The second point is that wastage is increasing all the time. People are coming out and are not re-engaging.
The future outlook is that the lack of Regular recruitment will be intensified by increasing wastage. Let us not forget a


small but important fact. The War Office have had a "bisque"—to use a golfing term. It is that since the Indian Army was wound up, many officers and men from it have come into the Regular Army, which has made the wastage position look a little better than it really is. I should like to quote from the right hon. Gentleman's own memorandum. This is what he says about the Regular Army:
Moreover, the Army can never be fully efficient and the National Service men be properly trained and economically employed unless the Regular element is appreciably increased.
At present the Regular element is not being appreciably increased. Moreover, it is appreciably diminishing. The future outlook is not merely unsettled. It is extremely stormy. That is what we have said and shall continue to say. The only constructive answer we have had on this matter concerns married quarters. The War Office say time after time that they are going to review conditions of pay—the perfect F-branch answer of the War Office.
The right hon. Gentleman must face up to this matter. Unless he does so, in two or three years' time matters will be in such a jam that he will have to do it. Then it will cost much more and it will be less effective. A little bit of pay now would be worth much more at a future date and would be much less dangerous. I know all the arguments against it: the whole of the Civil Service has a wage freeze; the whole country has a wage freeze; think what hon. Gentlemen opposite would say about putting up the pay of the Army. The point about it is that the Army has never kept pace with wage increases, and at the present time is a community that cannot strike or do anything like that, and is living in great hardship, penury and difficulty. I am not exaggerating. It particularly applies to those with responsibility. If you "do them in the eye" and neglect them, they will go.
That applies particularly to the good ones, who can get better rewards in civil life. If the good ones go, not only do we get a bad Army but the position is dangerous, even in the interests of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The cadre which is then going to train the National Service men, which means half the youth of England, will get less and less

efficient, waste more and more time, and give the young men a worse start in life. We must give those good officers a reasonable standard of life to enable them to live up to their responsibilities. We must ensure that they stay on in the Army, and give the recruits the full benefit of the training they have had, to make them efficient. It is a cheap form of investment.
I do not accept the answer that we cannot give them any more money, nor do I accept the objection that it will cost more. We are told that if these suggestions are accepted there will be a vast increase in the Budget. If we spend a bit of money on this small, Regular element we may have a slight increase in the Estimates for a year or two but we shall get a big return when the properly trained National Service men go back to industry. It will more than repay the extra money.
Whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may feel about the Armed Services, if we go on as we have done from 1945 up till now the curve will become sharper and the difficulty of putting it right will become so acute that we may never be able to do it. I believe that hon. Gentlemen who have studied this will agree that at the moment the Regular element of the Army is very sick indeed, and if they do not give it a pill with a golden coating, it will get so sick that the Government will ruin the Army, endanger the country, bore the National Service men and give them a bad start in life; and as time goes on the Government will pay for it in terms of Western Union not working and a more advanced Russian policy.

Mr. H. Hynd: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that there should be different rates of pay for the Regulars and the National Service men?

Brigadier Head: Yes, certainly. We have always said that the long-service Regular element should have a higher rate than the National Service short-service element.

6.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): We have had a very interesting Debate in which a very large number of points have been raised, and I will try to cover the maximum number of them. The


hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) began by asking me to pay attention to some passages in his speech in the Defence Debate. Let me assure him that I have taken note of those passages. I will not refer today—because it would not be worth speaking briefly on it—to his passage about the use of Colonial troops and garrisons, but that is certainly a thing which all of us ought to consider very carefully indeed.
His second point was about A.A. command and A.A. defence generally. A newcomer to these matters is struck by the enormous burden which anti-aircraft defence puts on the manpower of the Army, but it would be a bold man who would move drastically to reduce what our staffs tell us is the necessary minimum of anti-aircraft defence today. I might be inclined in some ways to share his impression that the best defence against aircraft is not necessarily from the ground, but, on the other hand, this is a highly technical and highly scientific matter and we must not conclude that all the progress is being made in the air. Very important technical and scientific progress is being made on the side of anti-aircraft defence, and I do not think that we could possibly shirk that burden, heavy though it undoubtedly is. He said he could give us some suggestions for discussion, and we would welcome that.
The hon. and gallant Member then passed to mobilisation plans. I can assure him that a very great deal of thought—I have already seen the fruits of that thought—has already been given in the War Office to that matter, and that the preparation of that planning is well-advanced today. He spoke of week-end refresher courses for staff officers. I understand that the objection to that is that they are very expensive, but I am very willing to reconsider that matter and to look into it personally, because I think it has obviously got something in it.
He then passed to the question of the organisation of infantry divisions, their mobility and motorisation, and wireless and radio equipment, and expressed concern whether we were providing enough in the way of radio and wireless equipment. That matter was also referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head). I am assured that that is a field of re-equipment where we have made considerable

progress in the past two years, and the past year especially. The only reason why the Vote is not quite so large this year in that respect is that we are further behind in some other elements of re-equipment and are bringing these up into line with our new radio equipment, which is beginning to flow in to a perceptible degree. I assure him that it is not a matter in which I am likely to take a "galloper" view because one of the few glimpses I ever had of the Army in operation was when I saw the hon. Members for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) and Stratford (Mr. Profumo) in a haystack on Christmas Day, 1942, engaged in Army/Air co-operation on the radio and talking all day on the wireless. I was extremely impressed by the absolutely indispensable character of wireless aids in every form of modern military operation.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman then suggested that I should be making visits to units of the Army stationed all over the world. Certainly there is nothing I would rather do if I were able, but in the present Parliamentary situation I can only suggest that I take him with me, otherwise I am afraid that some of my hon. and right hon. Friends might not look with an approving eye on it. He also raised the question of pay and especially pay for the Regular element in the Forces. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carshalton also mentioned it. Let me assure them that this is simply a question of what we can afford. I would also re-assure the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing in regard to his suggestion that we had been right in following the policy of the Coalition Government on the matter of levelling up to some extent the pay of lower ranks. Yet he would think that we might have dangerous and mistaken views of going too far in that direction, and he actually said that he thought that some of us might be in favour of abolishing rank.
Let me reassure him on that matter. No one on this side of the House, certainly no Socialist, could possibly take the view that rank in the Army or any other walk of life should be abolished, or that equal pay should be introduced in the Army or in other ranks of life or human endeavour. If he studied Socialist theory, he would see that that was very far from our views. We have always taken the view that more skill and more responsible work must, certainly in the


present stage of human development, be paid at a higher rate, and all Socialist theorists that I know, with the exception of one prominent one, have always taken that view and set their face strongly—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: He is the best.

Mr. Strachey: Bernard Shaw is the only one I know who took the other view, and I cannot, in this matter at any rate, call him a responsible Socialist theorist. All Socialist theory worthy of the name takes the view that what we are opposed to is not inequalities of income but unearned income. That is the essence of the matter. We certainly believe in the senior officer, with his heavy responsibilities, having a different grade of pay from the new recruit, in exactly the same way that the manager or the highly skilled technician in a works has a different rate of pay from the boy who joins that works as an office boy or to sweep out the sheds as his first job. There is surely no difference in that as between Service and civilian life.
The hon. and gallant Member asked me about Territorial Army units without drill halls. That matter gives us some concern, but, fortunately, we have made much progress in the provision of these Territorial Army centres in the last year, and we hope to make rapid progress in future.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) said that until the Territorial Army proposal, of which I spoke in the previous Debate, came into force we had no immediate reserve. Surely things are not as bad as that. There is the main Z Reserve, which consists today largely of highly trained men who have had war service. However, it is a wasting asset, and to replace it the new Reserve will be built up. As the men flow out of National Service into the Territorial Army or Supplementary Reserve, they will form the new Reserve Army. The hon. Member made a number of points about the way in which the modification of the Territorial Army structure and building of the Reserve Army would work, and said that there must be great flexibility, with which I agree. I am sure we shall have a certain amount of trial and error, and although we shall not get it perfect at the start, we have a sound basis on which to work.
The same hon. Member asked me about bounty, and I agree that we want an announcement at any early date of the exact terms and conditions of the National Service man who thinks of volunteering—becoming a Territorial Army volunteer—and especially of the bounty. All I can say today is that there will be such a scheme but I cannot this afternoon make an announcement as to its exact terms.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman make clear the point I was trying to bring out, that it will be possible for the National Service man, after his release from whole-time service, to volunteer and be treated as a volunteer?

Mr. Strachey: We shall encourage him to volunteer, but I cannot give the exact terms and conditions of the county and the other terms and conditions under which he will volunteer, although I know there is a need to give that at an early date.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me for interrupting? He said a moment ago that the new structure of the Territorial Army was to replace the Class Z Reserve. Surely he realises that the men on the Class Z Reserve have not been allocated to any unit and, therefore, do not form an organised Reserve. I thought that had been generally understood, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to be overplaying the value of this Reserve.

Mr. Strachey: It will do more than replace it. It will improve on it, though, as I said, it consists to a large extent of men who have had war service.

Mr. Low: But it will take a long time to organise.

Mr. Strachey: I agree that it will take longer to organise.
I will look into the point about P.A.Y.E. made by the hon. Member for Dumfries but I cannot give a definite answer today. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) put weighty points, as he always does, and asked me vitally important questions such as, what is the purpose for which we are raising and perfecting our Army? I can only repeat what I endeavoured to say on my speech on the Estimates, because it remains the case


that there are two purposes which we have to meet. There are our immediate overseas commitments which we cannot possibly escape, and there is also the necessity to prepare to make a worthy contribution to the defence of Western Europe and so prevent the outbreak of another war.
Those are the two purposes for which we are asking the House to provide this substantial sum of money. The hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), as it seemed to me, totally misrepresented that and suggested that the second purpose for which we were using these Armed Forces, and perfecting them as we can, was to join with some others in a possible attack on Russia. I should like not only to deny that forcibly but also to point out to the hon. Member and to the House that the size of the Forces which we can raise at this time makes any such suggestion extremely unrealistic, to put it no higher than that, and that there is no question whatever about the Armed Forces we have in existence or in preparation which could lend colour to that suggestion in any way.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton legitimately asked how long it would take to do this. I agree with him, and with other speakers who made the same point, that time is of the essence in this matter. Nevertheless, it is not a question of being totally unready at one date and, after that date, having everything perfectly ready. We are already making some contribution to the defence of Western Europe, and it is a question of raising that contribution as rapidly as we are able, taking into account all the other calls on our resources. That is one of the main tasks to which we are bending all our efforts.
Now I must refer to some of the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), many of which were valuable. With respect, I differ from him in one statement he made, namely, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State failed to deal with the points he made in the Estimates Debate. The House will remember the full reply at considerable length which my hon. Friend made, and a satisfying winding-up speech most hon. Members found it. So I could not agree that he did not deal with those points, and I could not help feeling that it was only because he dealt

with them in a way with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not agree, which is different from not dealing with them at all.

Sir G. Jeffreys: May I interrupt for one moment? What I said was that the hon. Gentleman did not deal with some adequately and that with others he did not deal at all.

Mr. Strachey: Of course, that is a matter of opinion and I think that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman really means is that he did not agree with the answers he received. Again, he asked this fundamental question, which has been asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton in another form: What is the part designed for the Forces, active and Reserve, which we are endeavouring to raise, not for our immediate overseas commitments but in case of emergency? That part is to make a contribution to the defence of Western Europe and to hold a part of that line. Those Forces which can be made available on the outbreak of war are important but so also are the reinforcements that can be sent out month after month after the outbreak. That, without the slightest equivocation, is the rôle for which we are preparing armed land Forces, and other Forces, too, today.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked whether we had made definite plans for those purposes; and what was the purpose of Western Union and the Atlantic Pact and all those elaborate preparations which had gone on? Surely it would be a most retrograde step if we made individual isolated plans today for that purpose. Surely we should agree that to achieve this purpose and in order to make Western Union a defensible union, which would be extremely unlikely to be attacked, it must be done on an international basis and not nationally. There, I should have thought, the progress made in recent months, as well as in the last year or so, has been considerable.
The hon. and gallant Member then went on to make the point that the recruit training units were largely useless, on the short-term basis, at any rate, for active service. Of course, the training of large masses of recruits is a heavy burden on Regular Army manpower, but is it not worth producing a Reserve Army? It is the considered opinion of the Government and


of the Staffs that it is worth undertaking this heavy burden in order gradually to build up a Reserve Army of considerable size. If that is done, we are bound to take the burden on our Regular manpower.

Sir G. Jeffreys: The right hon. Gentleman either did not understand or, although I hope not, is misrepresenting me. What I said was that it was quite unsound to use what are, and what are rated as, Service units for the elementary training of recruits; that is uneconomic in every sort of way. I suggested that we ought to have special recruit training units. This is the only sound way of dealing with the raw material and turning it into the finished article.

Mr. Strachey: I quite appreciate the point which the hon. and gallant Member has made, but, however we did it, the burden on our limited resources of Regular long-term manpower would still exist. All I am saying is that this is an inescapable burden if we are to build up the Reserve Army. It might be arguable that we should not do that, but our opinion is that it is a burden worth carrying when the importance of the purpose to be achieved is considered.
The hon. and gallant Member next asked about the purposes or the propriety of the system by which the National Service men are brought in at fortnightly intervals. At first sight it would have seemed to me that a smooth flow in the intake of National Service men would minimise the burden on our resources of training by the Regular personnel who are pinned down for that purpose, rather than a large periodic intake. I am more than willing to re-examine this question, but I assure the hon. and gallant Member that we do not take in the National Service men once a fortnight simply to suit my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. We do it at the option, and by the desire, of the Army. It is the view of the Army that it is better to have these men in small doses so that the burden is spread evenly rather than to have a large intake at any one time. I will, however, look carefully into this matter.
The hon. and gallant Member spoke also about War Office staffs. The figure there has come down from the peak of 18,000

to 7,000—giving the nearest thousand in each case—and it went down by 1,000 last year. It is still large, but is rapidly dropping.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my asking him a question which I omitted to ask in my speech. I gather that there was an overall cut throughout the whole of the Services—the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted the War Office figure. Does he know whether that cut—I believe it was 20 per cent.—was implemented in Malaya? If so, it was a very dangerous thing to do to units or formations who are taking part in active operations. I do not necessarily expect an answer now, but ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into this and, if that actually happened, to see that it never happens again.

Mr. Strachey: Of course, there has been no reduction—quite the reverse, in fact—in the number of our Forces serving in Malaya.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I was referring to staffs.

Mr. Strachey: If the hon Member is referring to staffs, I will obtain the information and write to him.
I come now to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South, who asked me to deal seriously with the points he raised. I agree that they are most serious points, as fundamental as any that could be raised in a Debate on defence, and I will attempt to deal with them most seriously. His first question was quite a simple one. He said, "What are we trying to defend?" The answer is quite simple: we are trying to defend this country. His second question was to ask, "Where are we trying to defend it?" The answer is, not exclusively, but principally, in Western Europe. Surely there is no equivocation about that. One part of the Army's task is, I repeat, to try to provide a worthy contribution to those defence forces in Western Europe which, we believe, if they are built up adequately and in time, can not only defend this country, but can make the frightful eventuality of a new war far less probable and avoid it altogether.
I cannot agree with the next proposition of my hon. Friend, which was that the Army today has no protection to


offer the people of this country against air attack. Again, I think that a worthy contribution to Western European defence is an absolutely vital task in the air defence of this country. If my hon. Friend would reconsider the matter, I think he would agree that the two things are very closely bound together.
His final argument really amounted to putting forward the view that in the last analysis this country is indefensible today and we were making all these efforts to achieve an impossible object. I would say, as frankly and as unequivocally as I can, that it may well be the case that today any country, taken by itself, is indefensible; and that may apply even to the largest and strongest countries. But I would certainly disagree that this country is indefensible if we take into account that it is part of a regional system of security and that the whole policy of this country and of our part of the world, the building of Western Union and the Atlantic Pact and the like, are precisely to meet that situation of a new war, in which countries in isolation may be largely indefensible and, therefore, have to become, or should become, part of regional systems of security.
Therefore, taken in that context, which is surely, the proper context, I entirely disagree with my hon. Friend in the doctrine of despair which he put out that this country is indefensible. I think that, together with the Allies who are bound to us under the Atlantic Pact, the country is fully defensible and, by wise and steady preparation, can be made part of a defensive system which is not only defensible, but which is sufficiently strong to avoid the possibility of attack. Nor do I agree that that effort necessarily—or, indeed, at all—condemns our people to a falling standard of life.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the first month of a possible war there could be anything between 10 million and 20 million casualties; and if such casualties are inflicted on this country, would he say that this country was defensible?

Mr. Strachey: Those are hypothetical questions to which I could not possibly

give the answers. None of us knows the conditions, the date, or a great deal about the terrible hypothesis of a new war, but I repeat my view that, given the world situation as it is today, it would be utterly wrong to accept what, I must repeat, is the doctrine of despair that this country is indefensible, although it might be so in isolation.
I also repeat that I do not believe that the burden, heavy though it is, of giving this country adequate defence measures on land, sea and air, is so heavy that it condemns us to a falling standard of life. The Votes which we are providing this year, although they represent a heavy burden on our economy, can, and will, be sustained.

Brigadier Head: I was very modest and asked the right hon. Gentleman only one question, but it was the same question that we have been asking for the last five years. He states in his own White Paper that unless we arrest the gradual wastage and decrease in the numbers of long-term men, we shall be in a very serious position. I only ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could outline any steps, except for married quarters, which the Government are taking to put right this most serious of all positions?

Mr. Strachey: The hon. and gallant Member has pressed that question frequently, and the only suggestions he has made are very direct ones of increases of pay and the like. We would all like to increase Regular pay, of course, but the question is what can we afford? There are a great many things to consider—the enormous task of re-equipment, many highly desirable objects of expenditure and the limit to the burden we can undertake. Some of these propositions for improving the attractiveness of Regular recruiting are more costly changes than we could make although, of course, we would all like to make them. We are making some of them and married quarters is not the only one. We shall certainly do all we can afford to do, but this afternoon I cannot go beyond that.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AIR ESTIMATES, 1950–51—REPORT [21st March]

VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

Resolution reported;
That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 215,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

7.2 p.m.

Mr. George Ward: During the Debate last week on the Air Estimates a great many points were raised from both sides of the House, and a large field was covered on this important subject. There is not a very great deal to add in the Report stage tonight. I think hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that by far the greatest anxiety which was expressed during the Debate last week, and which has been expressed in the Debates on all three Service Estimates, was the question of recruiting. It is that to which I wish to direct my remarks for a few moments. The Secretary of State for Air said during the Debate last week:
Entries for the last six months of 1949 compare very unfavourably with the number obtained during the corresponding period of 1948 and the significance of this fact must cause all of us great concern.
I entirely agree with the Secretary of State that it does cause us all very great concern. I might remind the House of the extent of that concern by quoting the relevant figures. In the fourth quarter of 1948 the Regular engagements were 3,061 and, in the fourth quarter of 1949, only 1,934. In the bounty scheme in the fourth quarter of 1948 there were 1,140 and in the fourth quarter of 1949 only 373.
The Secretary of State also said:
The recruiting position as a whole, however, remains unsatisfactory and since, during the coming year, a large number of tradesmen are due to leave the Service on completing bounty engagements, the general level of experience in the Service will further decline unless a larger proportion of these men are willing to remain for a further period of service.
That is the second of our problems. The first is to keep up the required numbers

in the Royal Air Force as a whole by recruiting, and the second is to keep up the required level of experience in the Service.
There is, of course, a third problem which the Secretary of State expressed in these words:
There is still a lack of balance between trades and, while surpluses in some trades have been eliminated or greatly reduced, there are still serious deficiencies in some of the most vital and highly skilled trades, such as radar and wireless fitters and armourers. This unbalance, I am afraid, must persist for a long time and can be evened out only as the experienced regular content of the force is built up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March. 1950; Vol. 472, c. 1775.]
That is the third problem we have to solve—the question of balance between trades.
The impression left upon the House by the Secretary of State last week was that he was rather too inclined to accept this serious position with a sad shake of the head and an expression of hope that it would eventually become all right. He also told us of certain improvised expedients, which I described in my speech as "robbing Peter to pay Paul." The truth is that it is no earthly good waiting for something to turn up. These very vital problems can only be solved by taking definite and decisive steps, first to attract into the Air Force men of the right standard by offering them improved pay and conditions, not only for single men but for married men also; secondly, to give them greater hope of advancement; and, thirdly, to give them decent pensions when they have finished their careers in the Service.
We welcome the statement of the Secretary of State that action is already being taken to implement the recommendations of the R.A.F. Manpower Economy Committee and the suggestions of an Air Ministry committee dealing with a new trade and career structure. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in air matters will watch the results of this reorganisation with a great deal of interest, but that is only a part of the solution and the Government must really make some attempt to keep pace with the rising cost of living, especially for married airmen.
To give an example of what I mean when I talk about keeping pace with the rising cost of living, I would point out that


although the total number of personnel in the Royal Air Force is to be reduced this year by 15 per cent., the Air Estimates under Vote 6 provide for an increase of 25 per cent. for food. This might indicate that the scales of rations in the Royal Air Force were being increased and that we were, therefore, to spend more money on food, but I think it more likely that it reflects the increased cost of food in this country.
I hope the Under-Secretary of State will tell us which of these two propositions Vote 6 reflects. If it reflects the rising cost of food, it is interesting to note that the ration allowance, which is a cash allowance to personnel who do not eat on their station, is reduced by 11 per cent.—in other words, approximately the same as the reduction in the total personnel of the Air Force. That means that when the Royal Air Force buys the food we, Parliament, are asked to vote the cost of the increased price of food, but, when the married airman has to buy the food for himself, he gets no increase whatever in his marriage allowances to meet rising prices. Similarly, the provision for solid fuel, gas and electricity is up by 10 per cent., in spite of the 15 per cent. reduction in the total numbers of personnel. Again this increased cost is not provided for by any increase in marriage allowances.
In his winding-up speech last week the Under-Secretary of State spoke of comradeship and games, etc., in the Service, as if these by themselves made up for the very real hardships from which married men are suffering in the R.A.F. I could not help feeling at the time that the thought of the cricket and football played by her husband was very small consolation to the harassed wife who had to make both ends meet. The Under-Secretary was speaking much more realistically when he said:
A reasonable return is expected to provide a decent standard of living,…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 1919.]
That is what the airman wants, but at the moment he is simply not getting it.
I have been dealing with the question of allowances. I must return for a moment to the question of pay, because it all really boils down to that. The Under-Secretary of State said last week that pay scales equivalent to civilian earnings were not in themselves a panacea.

We on this side of the House would like to know just what the Government's policy in regard to pay is to be. Has it changed since 1945, when the White Paper Cmd. 6715, setting out the new pay code for the Air Force stated, in page 6, paragraph 8;
It is desirable … that a suitable broad relationship should be established between the rates of pay of members of the forces in the basic grades and wage rates for comparable employment in industry generally"?
How far does that policy stand today? Let me give an example. The weekly pay of an aircraftman, first-class, group A, is 49s., badge pay after four years' service is 3s. 6d. per week, marriage allowance 35s. per week and the value of his clothing, rations which he receives in kind is 24s. per week, making a total of 111s. 6d. per week.
Let us compare that with average weekly earnings in civil life. According to the Ministry of Labour Gazette of September, 1949, the average weekly earnings of a man over 21 years of age were as follows: in engineering and shipbuilding, 146s. per week; instrument making, 145s. 6d. per week; motor vehicle manufacture, 153s. 11d. per week. How then can the Government say in their White Paper that Forces' pay should be broadly equivalent to civilian earnings, when to-day the two clearly bear no relation whatever to each other?
During the Debate last week the Secretary of State said:
we are considering a number of measures to increase the attractiveness of aircrew service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 1774–5.]
I read his speech very carefully and I must admit that I could not make out what those measures were. I had to reach the conclusion that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not told us what those measures were to be. I hope that the Under-Secretary may be able to enlighten me on that point when he winds up the Debate tonight. In considering measures to increase the attractiveness to aircrew service I trust the Secretary of State will be duly impressed by and give proper weight to the opinion expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the Debate that the solution of aircrew recruitment is the restoration of flying pay. If he will consider that, I feel certain that he will have taken a great step forward towards solving the problem.
I cannot help feeling also that many more airmen, both Regular and National Service men, who are engaged on ground duties, many of them not always very exciting, would be more encouraged to engage for longer periods in the R.A.F. if they lived in closer contact with flying personnel. Many of these men feel that they are far too remote from the main purpose of the Air Force which is, after all, flying and training to fight in the air. In reading the Debate on the Report stage of the Air Estimates last year, I was interested to see that the present Under-Secretary of State for Air said:
I do not wish to enter into the question of the morale of the Air Force, because that has been fully debated, but I am told—and it is my experience so far as I have been able still to keep in touch with the Air Force—that the difficulty which Air Force officers have always experienced in keeping in close touch with their men is increasing rather than decreasing. The difficulty arises particularly among young pilots, because they are, both figuratively and literally in these days, wrapt up in their machines. Normally they meet only the fitter and the rigger, and one or two other people of the Flight, who deal with the machines, and their contact with other ranks is limited. If they live off the station this contact is all the more limited.
He said a little later:
It is disturbing to learn that this difficulty is increased by the fact that most of the personal questions from other ranks are dealt with by the chief technical officer and that the ordinary station officer, the flying officer and pilot officer, have less to do than before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 105–6.]
In that case he was clearly talking about the lack of opportunity for man management among the younger flying officers.
I think that the same argument can well be applied to the airmen. I believe it is as important for the airman to be in close contact with the general duties branch officer as it is good for that officer to be in close contact with the airmen. I made the same point in the Debate on Air Estimates in 1946, when I put forward a plea to close the gulf which yawned between the winged and the wingless. On that occasion the then Under-Secretary of State for Air, the present Secretary of State for War, replying to me at the end of the Debate, said that the Government were proposing gradually to give the leadership of the airmen more and more to general duties branch officers.
He quoted a passage from an Air Council letter as follows:
In the Council's view, the object to be aimed at is that every airman should know that there is a particular officer to whom he may go for friendly help or advice on any matter, whether it relates to his private or Service life, whenever the position of the man or his efficiency is suffering from undue strain. Conversely, every officer should appreciate that there are certain individual airmen who expect to come to him for such help and advice, and it is both his duty and a privilege to encourage their confidence and study how to maintain and increase it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 1059–60.]
I believe that that is the key, or one of the keys, for which we are searching. I would like to know how far the admirable objects set out in this Air Council letter have been achieved since 1946, and how far the general duties branch officers have been able to be brought into closer contact with the airmen on the station. I believe if we can encourage that very much more, we shall obtain a higher morale, a better spirit in all Royal Air Force units which, in itself, will help a great deal to encourage men to stay in the Air Force instead of leaving.
I wish to deal for a moment with one or two small points which either were not discussed at all or not discussed very fully in the Debate last week. I would mention Reserves for a start. The Auxiliary flying squadrons and the Fighter Control units both received a fair share of the discussion. Although the figures of the strength of both of them were depressing, at the same time we were encouraged by the thought that as the National Servicemen start completing their full time training they may, we hope, join the Auxiliary squadrons and units instead of doing their ordinary Reserve training. I hope they do, and that may be the solution to that problem. But the Royal Air Force Regiment was not mentioned at all during the Debate last week; nor were the University Air squadrons.
In the 1949–50 Estimates it was said that 20 Royal Air Force Regiment squadrons were to be formed during 1949–50. But the Estimates for this year, on page 33, speak of only 12 squadrons. Would the Under-Secretary tell us whether that figure of 12 squadrons is the final figure, or whether it is still the policy of the Air Ministry to form 20 squadrons; and if so how long it will be before the remaining eight squadrons are formed?


Would he tell us how recruiting for these Regiment squadrons compares with the other Auxiliary units; how it is getting on and what sort of training are the Regiment squadrons carrying out?
Turning to the University Air squadrons, I understand that the permanent staffs of the 12 University squadrons have been considerably reduced. We are not told whether the reduction in those permanent staffs is due to a reduction in the number of University members joining those squadrons, or whether it is due to administrative economy. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us, so far as is possible, what is the strength of those squadrons; whether the University students are coming forward to join them in sufficient numbers and whether it will be possible to form the additional University squadrons which the Secretary of State mentioned in his speech last week. Those University squadrons played a very important part before the last war, and they still have a highly important part to play in providing the right officer material for the Royal Air Force. They should receive every possible encouragement.
There is one more point I wish to raise and that is economy of manpower. While recruiting is in such a bad state I hope that the Government will carefully consider whether there is not some unnecessary duplication in the flying training of Royal Air Force pilots and Fleet Air Arm pilots. I appreciate that this is largely a matter for the Ministry of Defence, but I hope that the Secretary of State will ask the Minister of Defence to go into the question and make certain that all the independent and separate Fleet Air Arm training units are really necessary; or whether some of these trainees from the Navy could be taken on by existing Royal Air Force training establishments, and so effect some saving in manpower. I do not want to start a war with the Navy. I was attached to the Fleet Air Arm myself for three years, and I have a great many friends in that branch of the Navy. But I am sure that it is something well worth looking into.
The occasion of the Air Estimates Debates is really the only chance in the year which we get to discuss these details of the Royal Air Force. I think it right we should take this opportunity to examine every aspect of the Service, to

seek such information as we can reasonably be given and to express our opinions. It is a valuable and important occasion of which good use was made last week in examining in detail all the many aspects of Service life. In this House we are concerned not only with the building up of the Royal Air Force into an efficient and powerful fighting Service and into an effective deterrent in peace and a strong defence if war should come, but we are also concerned with the wellbeing, the morale and the happiness of the men and women who serve in the Royal Air Force, and who deserve nothing but the best.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Perkins: I wish to make one last appeal to the Secretary of State to issue an Air Ministry order to keep Royal Air Force pilots out of this new safety zone about to be created between London and Bristol. I know and fully understand his difficulties, but this is the last chance we shall get of raising the matter for another twelve months. I do urge him therefore to issue this edict before it is too late, and to put a stop to all Royal Air Force flying in this corridor. If he does that he will restore confidence in the scheme; and he will minimise, so far as it is humanly possible to minimise, the risk of an accident. But I am convinced that if he does nothing, if Royal Air Force pilots are allowed to fly into this corridor, it will be only a matter of time before an accident happens.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to see an accident and when he realises the facts of the situation he will do everything in his power to prevent that inevitable accident from happening. This scheme is shortly to come into operation and I do urge him, before it is too late, to issue an order to keep Royal Air Force pilots out of the area, if only in the first three months in order to give the scheme a fair start.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I am more than conscious of what is involved in this particular scheme. In point of fact, consultations are taking place between my Department, the Ministry of Civil Aviation and other interested parties, and I can assure the hon. Member that we


shall do everything we can to secure a settlement satisfactory to all interested parties.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I do not wish to detain the House for very long, and I certainly do not wish to repeat in any detail the points which I ventured to put forward during the Debate on the Committee stage. We had a very full Debate then and we were indebted to the Under-Secretary for the answers which he gave so far as they covered the points which we had raised. But there are two points which I should like to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State.
In successive years we on this side of the House have often complained about what seems to us to be unnecessary secrecy in the general presentation by the Air Ministry of the state of the Royal Air Force. I think that we repeated the plea this year. We compare the statement with the information which the Admiralty give us from time to time, and the very broad picture which the Navy shows us as to the character of their ships, their numbers and types, whether in full commission, whether with reduced complements, whether in reserve or under construction. I think that, particularly in this year's Debates, we received from the Admiralty a good deal more detail than even in past years. It was detail which was most acceptable to the House and very encouraging to the country. It is that general information of which we have none regarding the Royal Air Force. We only know what numbers of men we are asked to provide for, and how much money we are asked to spent upon equipment as a whole and upon all the necessary supplies.
Therefore, when we are asked, "Are we getting value for our money?" we on this side of the House are not in a position to give an answer. But, curiously enough, compared with this rather close point of view in general, there are from time to time provided in various sources a good deal of detail on special machines and of a special type. I wonder whether the Secretary of State approves of the publication of these details in the technical Press. No doubt, he must have authorised some of them.

For instance, in December of last year a very full account was given in "The Aeroplane," with detailed plans of the experimental development of the E.T.44 powered by the Rolls Royce new engine. I have no doubt that all these details are ones which the Secretary of State may think it right should be—

Mr. A. Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman knows, of course, that experimentation and development work is not the responsibility of the Air Ministry?

Mr. Macmillan: That is why I gave the right hon. and learned Gentleman a few minutes' notice. I knew that; but, of course, it is the responsibility of the Government. I come to the next case. In "The Aeroplane" of 10th February there are 16 pages with extremely detailed plans of Britain's first jet bomber. There are very careful plans, pictures and diagrams of the Canberra B. Mark I which is, after all, not yet actually in production. It is still in development or just entering production.

Mr. Henderson: It is flying.

Mr. Macmillan: It seems to me and my hon. Friends rather a curious contrast. We have this great cloak of obscurity over the general state of the Force and this extreme degree of detail which is allowed to be published in the technical Press regarding certain special machines, including some of the most novel and valuable. No doubt, these details are issued under the authority of the Ministry of Supply, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the responsibility of the Government is indivisible. I am bound to say that I think that no Secretary of State for Air if he did not approve of the publication—and I do not say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did—would take refuge in the fact that it was issued under the authority of another Department. That Department under the present arrangement is detached from the Air Ministry, but it is largely composed of those officers and skilled research designers who, under another system, might be part of the Air Ministry itself, as indeed they were until the coming of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government in 1945.
I should like to know whether the Air Staff are consulted about these publications and whether all these details have


their approval before they are published in the technical Press. One knows how important some of these details may be. I feel sure that if we had similar details about all the developments and research, the new machines and engines, of all countries, we should be rather grateful. I am informed that it is easy from the data given, especially about the Canberra, to calculate very closely its speed, range, bomb-carrying capacity and many other important factors in weighing the value of the machine from the point of view of another Power. I do not press this point any further. I had not the opportunity to give any long notice to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and if he prefers to look into the matter and to make a more careful statement after examination, I shall be satisfied. This is a most important factor, and care should be taken about this kind of detail, though we should welcome more general information about the Service as a whole.
There is one other point, which arises out of the Debate of last week, about the general policy on the future of our bombing force. I do not wish to press this point too hard, either. There were, and there may be still, varying views about what is the wise course which ultimately will be taken by all the Governments who enter into the alliance of Western Europe, including the United States of America and the Dominions, as the great plans of the grand alliance grow. It may well be possible that we shall find that the wise course will be to concentrate the efforts of certain countries on particular parts of the joint programme; but that involves a far greater degree of organisation and a much closer alliance than has yet been reached after the rather slow steps which have been taken so far towards the building up of the grand alliance.
In those circumstances, I understand that from our own point of view the bomber force today consists of Lincolns. They are a development of the Lancaster that we knew so well in the war. We do not know how many Lincolns we have in use or in reserve. We do not know how many squadrons there are in the bomber force, but they are armed with the Lincolns which, if not out of date, can hardly be called modern machines. They are powerful machines, but they have not either the range, the speed or the

bomb-carrying capacity which the modern long-range bomber will require.
That force is now to be supported by the gift of the B.29's—I think 70 in number. Those aircraft, as we mentioned last week, present certain staffing problems to the Secretary of State. No doubt, they will be overcome. However, the aircraft do not amount to a very great number. In war-time, if I remember rightly, we had a complement of 20 machines to a bomber squadron. Therefore, this number would hardly equip, and make the reserve for, three squadrons. I have no doubt that in peace-time the strength of the squadrons might be reduced to nine or 12 machines. Important as it is, it does not, I assume, mean a very great contribution in relation to the total forces and squadrons of Bomber Command. This type is itself obsolescent, and I think it is being replaced in the United States by the B.36, which I am informed has a maximum bomb load of the order of 72,000 lb. as against the maximum load of the B.29 of 20,000 lb. That is an enormous difference.
I would like to know what is the real intention of the Government on the future of our bomber force. I am not going to press for an immediate answer; I do not think it would be right. We enter these Debates in a spirit of very great responsibility at the present time, and it increases year by year. Therefore, I am not going to press them to give a final answer, but I want them to consider very carefully which way we are to go. Are we going to think of depending upon the B.29 and perhaps the B.36? Are we to depend largely for our strategic bombing forces on aircraft either given to us by the United States or U.S. Forces themselves which are located in these islands? That would involve a great change of policy, and I observe that Lord Tedder rather protested against that view in a very interesting lecture, the text of which is printed in the January-February number of the organ of the United Empire Society. Lord Tedder took the view against a policy of relying upon the United States to provide the strategic heavy bombers of the future.
I do not wish to press the right hon. and learned Gentleman on details of technical equipment, but I think it is pretty well known in Service circles, and is now


quite clearly understood, that the Canberra is not that kind of bomber. When we speak of a long-range, strategic heavy bomber, I think we must agree that, magnificent machine as it may be, both as to the character of its bomb load, its range and speed, in relation to the work which it has to do, it is not in that category. Therefore, I do ask that this problem should be faced and settled. Are we to proceed with the development of the bomber which we are told was in development and which will equip our strategic heavy bomber squadrons with some British-built bomber which will come into being perhaps three, four or even five years from now, according to the difficulties which development and production may bring? Or are we to abandon the attempt and range ourselves on the work of development and production done by our allies in the United States?
The question of cost is tremendous, and the question of financing the effort which each nation should contribute towards the common pool needs to be most carefully weighed. I certainly do not wish to press the Minister too far today, except to say that I hope he will reach a final decision as soon as may be, and that that decision, when taken, will be pressed forward with the approval of the Government—any Government, this Government or its successor—with the feeling that it would be likely to carry out that policy This problem has to be weighed against the enormous cost of these new machines, assuming that a British-built bomber is to come into the picture. It has to be weighed against the contribution to defence which the nation has to make, and a decision must be made if we are to make any really effective developments and reach the position which we ought to have.
I only raise these two points because I think that, although they both arise out of the Debate last week, they need to be underlined. I do not expect to receive from the right hon. and learned Gentleman a very detailed answer to the points I have raised, because I have not been able to give him anything but very short notice of the fact that I intended to raise these matters, and I shall be quite content if serious attention is given to them as the result of this small intervention. We bring these points to the

attention of the Secretary of State and of his colleagues in the Government, in the Service Departments and also in the Treasury, because these are matters which are all linked together in any long-term view.
On those two points, I would only say that, both last week and in this series of Debates, we have had far wider information than before, and, although there are many other points on which we wish to press for more information, our purpose is to sustain in every way we can the Secretary of State in the efforts which he is making for the strengthening of the R.A.F. Our object today, as it has been during all these years, is to urge the vital necessity of a powerful and effective Air Force as one of the most, and perhaps even the greatest, demands that the country must meet, above all other considerations.

7.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Crawley): As the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) said, so many points were raised in the Debate last week, that it is not very surprising that not a great many hon. Members should have added to their remarks today. If I might begin by answering the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) who said that obviously he would not expect a detailed answer tonight on the two points he raised, I would simply say, in reference to the article in "The Aeroplane," that in general we are informed that no technical information of any value is given away in this article, but we will certainly look into it again from the general point of view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. In regard to the bomber force, I would say that the B29 is an interim aircraft, and there is no thought of abandoning our experimental work on the larger jet bombers. We are pressing on with them, but, quite obviously, any decision will depend on their development, and we are not in a position to reach a final answer yet.

Mr. Macmillan: When the hon. Gentleman says that the decision will turn on development itself, does he mean that, if the machine is successfully developed and proved to be capable of doing what it is intended to do, and, in fact, turns out to be a good machine, then it will be the machine with which the squadrons will be equipped; or does he mean that, apart


from development of the machine and questions of financial and general considerations, as well as what shall be the function, will have to be weighed, and that a final decision has not been taken?

Mr. Crawley: If the machine turns out as we hope it will, we do intend to arm Bomber Command with it, but the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there are many other things upon which the decision will depend.
If I may now turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester, I should like to begin by saying something which I wanted to say the other day but which got crowded out because of the late hour. The hon. Gentleman began by making a friendly reference to myself which he knows I reciprocate, but he also made a libellous accusation against me that I had made a landing without my undercarriage at an aerodrome where he was the instructor. I shall not weary the House with the details showing why that accusation is libellous, but I will retaliate by saying that, on the first occasion on which I saw the hon. Gentleman, he was making a landing without an undercarriage, which was intractable, rather than retractable. It was at a meet of the Oxford University drag hunt, and I remember seeing the hon. Gentleman immaculately dressed and coming over a high fence, without his horse.
The hon. Member raised many points during his speech, and I shall try to deal with a few of them. He spoke at some length about pay and allowances. We can say that, when the hon. Gentleman makes comparisons between a married airman with 111s. 6d. per week and various civilian jobs, he is omitting any mention of certain perquisites which Service men receive, such as his own meals and a good many of his clothes, a great many of his repairs, and certain preferential rates in travel and other things which I have not in the time been able to total up to any amount, but which, and including cheap cinemas, and some educational facilities for his children, and so on, amount to quite a lot.
At the same time, I am not suggesting that in all respects the payment received is as high as in some civilian trades. However, one must compare like with like and bear in mind that there are a great many things which the Service affords and which it is very difficult to reduce into

terms of hard cash. On the figures given me by the hon. Gentleman and remembering some of the additional things, I do not think that the comparison is as unfavourable as the bare figures suggest. Again, we are looking at these things the whole time, and our policy remains what the hon. Gentleman asked for. We are trying to make the conditions of the men roughly equivalent to those in the trades in which they might engage in civilian life.
In regard to recruitment, I would like to make—

Mr. Ward: I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to be quite fair. He said that I was not comparing like with like, but if I was not doing that, then why was it that in the Government White Paper the rates of pay of members of the Forces are compared with wage rates in comparable employment in industry generally? That is what I was trying to do.

Mr. Crawley: What I mean is that in making the comparison the hon. Gentleman has omitted certain things which make them like each other. For instance, the airman—not his wife—gets his meals during the week. There are really a large number of small items which, when taken one by one add up to a great amount. The advantage, for example, of having cheap cinemas which other people do not get is something which one cannot reduce to hard cash and that is why the comparison is difficult if one tries to tie it down to figures. We do not pretend that everything is perfect, but we are constantly trying to improve the amenities for the airmen in many small ways where we cannot make large improvements in pay.
The same applies very much to recruitment. I should again like to make the point that quite obviously at this time the best hope of improving our recruitment is by inducing those who have served their National Service term to take on a Regular engagement. In that respect we have done several things which I am sure will help although they are only just beginning to have their effect this year. There is, for instance, the deferred apprentices scheme. This is the first year in which we shall have apprentices who will be doing a much shorter time of training and going into a skilled trade. All that makes life in the Royal Air Force more


attractive. We have broken down various skilled trades into jobs more or less repetitive, but still requiring skill so that more National Service men can go into skilled trades. We are considering careers in the trades and the possibility of altering the trade structure.
Then there is the work on resettlement which I think we can claim as successful and is becoming better known. In regard to the general recruitment of people from civilian life, the hon. Member for Worcester raised the question of flying pay for aircrews. At this point I can only say that we are studying the matter very carefully. There, again, it is much more a series of small things, if one accepts the great economic difficulties all round, than of large increases in pay, but a series of things makes life more attractive. I think that applies also to allowances and I am afraid I have nothing more to say today beyond the fact that we are making careful study to see what more can be done.
In regard to the general duties officers and their contact with the men which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, was something which I raised last year, we are glad to say that we are now handing over all welfare work to general duties officers which will have the effect of what I had in mind that is, bring them into contact with the men on all sorts of social and personal questions which I am sure we all agree is necessary, and I hope that will meet what the hon. Member has in mind. With regard to the Royal Air Force Regiment, there are now 12 squadrons and they are doing training like other Auxiliary squadrons, but whether they should be increased to 20 or not has not been finally settled. Twelve are quite sufficient at the moment, but the whole question of what exactly the Royal Air Force Regiment is to do and what the training is to be is under review.
There are 14 and not 12 University Air Squadrons, and the reduction of staff is simply a matter of pruning. In fact, the recruiting is very good. The establishment is about 960. There are more than 860 members of the squadrons and of these 532 are doing training ab initio, that is to say they are not people who have come out of the war and gone into the university squadrons; they are brand new recruits, and I think that is a very

healthy position. Even where there has been a reduction of staff, I think the Opposition can comfort themselves that there is a real degree of efficiency in pruning in Headquarters Staff without affecting recruitment by the squadrons.
In regard to the Fleet Air Arm, all basic training is done by us. We will certainly look into the question to see if anything can be done about advanced training. A committee has sat and, I think, reported last year. It reported that it was of the opinion that there was not much more that could be done with regard to amalgamating the two, but that, again, is something we can look at to see if we can bring about further improvement. I do not think there are any other particular questions to which I can give any immediate answer, but if there are I will certainly look through the speeches and write to hon. Members when this Debate is over.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by Mr. Strachey, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Callaghan, Mr. Michael Stewart and Mr. Crawley.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

"to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force and to repeal certain enactments relating thereto," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 5.]

Resolutions reported:

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE

"That a sum, not exceeding £52,850,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1951."

VOTE 2. RESERVE AND AUXILIARY SERVICES

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,442,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 56,000 all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve and 20,000, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

VOTE 7. AIRCRAFT AND STORES

"That a sum, not exceeding £78,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

VOTE 8. WORKS AND LANDS

"That a sum, not exceeding £26,440,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

"That a sum, not exceeding £4,345,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

"That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1949–50; ARMY ESTIMATES, 1950–51; CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESS), 1948–49.

REPORT [23rd March]

Resolutions reported:

CLASS II

VOTE 2. DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS, &C.

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,010,355, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments abroad; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."

CLASS VI

VOTE 16. MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, including certain grants and subsidies."

CLASS IX

VOTE 2. MINISTRY OF FOOD

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,880,400, be granted to His Majesty to

defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies and sundry other services."

Resolutions agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1950–51

Resolution reported:
That a sum, not exceeding £137,577,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure in respect of the Army Services.

[For details of Vote, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 2299.]

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1949–50.

Resolution reported:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £133,511,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for expenditure in respect of the Supplementary Estimates.

[For details of Vote, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1950; Vol 472, c. 2299–2300.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Resolution read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (GANG LABOUR AND MACHINERY)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move to leave out "£133,511,600" and insert "£133,511,500."
I do this to draw attention to Item Z in the Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in order to obtain an explanation from the Minister of Agriculture with regard to some rather curious and astonishing figures revealed in the Estimate. The House will see that on page 53 of the Supplementary Estimates, under the heading "Z.—Appropriations in Aid" there is given a list of the anticipated deficiencies. Under the heading "Gang labour" one sees that the anticipated


deficiency is £1,370,000. Under the heading "Machinery operations (agricultural)" the anticipated deficiency is £1,200,000. It is with regard to these figures that I shall be asking the right hon. Gentleman to give us a very clear explanation.
In the original estimate for 1949–50 the anticipated deficiency for gang labour was £2,900,000. That estimate was revised after discussion with the Treasury and reduced to £2,700,000. Presumably the Treasury were called in to try and make sure that a close estimate was arrived at. The effect of this Supplementary Estimate will be to add another £1,370,000 to that £2,700,000, making a total deficiency on gang labour of £4,070,000—an increase of just over 50 per cent. above the figure contained in the estimate which was revised after discussion with the Treasury. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not dissent from those figures and that calculation, both of which are based upon the information contained in the evidence submitted by his Ministry to the Select Committee on Estimates in the last Parliament. He will find the figures on which I base that calculation on page 290 of that Committee's report.
With regard to the machinery operations, there again the original estimate of the deficiency for 1949–50 was £650,000. That was revised and reduced by the Treasury to a figure of £500,000. It is that figure of £500,000 which has to be contrasted with the figure in the Supplementary Estimate for a further deficiency of £1,200,000, meaning, if I understand the figures correctly, which I think I do, that instead of the loss on machinery operations on agricultural service being £500,000 it is now anticipated it will be £1,700,000, an increase of 240 per cent. Looking at it in another way, the estimate prepared by the Ministry, and reviewed after discussion with the Treasury, is 240 per cent. out. It may be, but we hope it is not the case, that the right hon. Gentleman has been seeking to model himself upon and to follow the evil example set by his colleague the Minister of Health. At least one can say that in view of these original estimates, as revised with the Treasury, these great increases in the anticipated deficiencies under these two heads do call strongly for an explanation.
While considering these figures, I have been thinking what are the possible causes for these vast increases upon the original estimates. Perhaps I could say that they might come from one of three possible causes and possibly, of course, a combination of one or more of them. It might be that the anticipated deficiency in respect of gang labour and machinery operations is because the receipts from the farmers for the hire of both gang labour and machinery are less than anticipated. That might be one cause. Another might be because large amounts are outstanding and due from farmers which have not as yet been collected.
The third possible cause might be that there has been some error, and it would me some error in the accountancy within the Ministry. For instance, there may have been some confusion between cash entries and cross entries in relation to which no cash passes. I cannot think of any other possible cause. The more we consider those possible causes the more unlikely it appears to me that they really afford any explanation for these figures in the Supplementary Estimates.
I should like to say a word or two about these possible causes. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether it is the case that the receipts from farmers in respect of gang labour are so considerably less than was anticipated. That might occur, of course, if there has been a substantial reduction in the gang labour service. No doubt, he will tell us whether that has occurred or not. He will, no doubt, recollect that the Select Committee recommended that notice should be given of the progressive reduction of gang labour service, with the object of ending its existence in 1952, and the Departmental replies to that report did not indicate dissent from that as a general proposition.
I should, indeed, be surprised to hear that there had been such a swift reduction in the gang labour service, following upon publication of the Select Committee's Report, as to account for this vast reduction in the receipts from the gang labour service.
Another possible reason for reduced receipts from farmers in respect of gang labour would be that the farmers had ceased to make use of the existing service to any great degree. The Select Committee pointed out that in 1947–48 the


gang labour service was unemployed for approximately a third of the year. But then the Ministry of Agriculture, in their Memorandum, published in Annex 15 to the Select Committee's Report, said this:
In general, Committees have been instructed to keep their labour operations continuously under review in the interests of economy and efficiency. They are to examine their holdings of agricultural workers in the light of current needs, to dispense with the services of unsatisfactory workers, and to examine their arrangements for the distribution of labour to avoid unnecessary journeys and loss of working time. A system of fuller records of labour operations is being kept, to facilitate the investigation of lost time, and the result come to the Ministry for scrutiny.
In the light of that evidence, surely it would be very remarkable indeed if this deficiency were in any considerable part due to the maintenance of a gang labour force much larger than is required by the farmers, and due to the gang labour force not being used by the farmers.
The Select Committee did warn the right hon. Gentleman that increased charges for the gang labour service might result in less employment of the gang labour service, and I should be interested to know whether that warning has, in fact, resulted in the increased charges not being such as to deter use of the service. Having regard, however, to the Memorandum from which I have just quoted, and the institution of this closer scrutiny, I must say I cannot feel that the cause for this greater deficiency than was anticipated is the fact that farmers are making less use than was anticipated of the gang labour service.
Let me now turn to machinery operations. Is it the case that there are reduced receipts, much less than was anticipated, from the farmers for machinery hiring? I understood after the Report of the Select Committee was published that it was likely that the machinery service would be considerably reduced and the surplus machinery sold. Of course, if it is reduced there will be reduced receipts from farmers. But then again, those reduced receipts would be off-set, at least to some extent, and possibly exceeded, by the proceeds of the sale of surplus machinery. I must say, I find it indeed difficult to come to the conclusion that reduced receipts from farmers, taking into account the proceeds of the sale of machinery, could result in a deficiency 240 per cent. above the anticipated defi-

ciency after the Treasury had gone into the figures.
It is for those reasons that I find it very hard indeed to come to the conclusion that the cause of this vastly increased deficiency is due primarily to a drop in receipts from farmers. Is it, then, due to large amounts being outstanding from farmers and not collected at the present time? The evidence of the Ministry that the Select Committee heard was that the Ministry had undertaken a review of the financial losses of the county committees and had assumed a stricter control. It is again difficult to believe that as a result of a stricter control such large amounts should be outstanding as to account for a deficiency of over £2½ million.
Is the cause an error in accountancy? It is difficult to see how that could have happened, or if it happened what possible excuse there could be. In its Report the Select Committee did draw attention to the fact that the accounts of each county were unco-ordinated and confused in form, and to the fact that expenditure on gang labour and on the machinery services was sometimes debited to the gang labour account or to the machinery account, and in other cases to the lands in possession.
So, as it appeared clearly from that Report, it was difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the precise position with regard to each service; difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain to what extent the lands in possession were being worked at a loss; and difficult, if not impossible, to determine precisely what amount really was being spent upon the gang labour service. But those difficulties in relation to those accounts should not affect the cash receipts.
Surely the county committees should know—I am sure they do know—and should have a record of what they receive by way of cash. Surely the Ministry themselves must know what is spent in cash by the agricultural committees. They also should know the total of cash received, although they may not be able to split it up perfectly accurately under the respective headings. I think this is borne out by the evidence given before the Select Committee. In paragraph 6 on page 306 of the Report, dealing with lands in possession, it is said:
The figures in the Estimates show an excess of receipts over expenditure. The figures do


not, however, provide an accurate picture, since they do not include internal payments between one Committee department and another such as the use of gang labour on lands in hand, the hire of Committee machinery, etc. These items were estimated for under their relative sub-heads. If these different items are taken into account, the estimated expenditure on lands in possession would exceed the estimated receipts.
That passage makes it quite clear that the internal accountancy was not all that was required to give a true picture with regard to lands in possession; but it does not in the least suggest that the accounts did not reveal a true picture with regard to the total cash expended and the total cash received by the county committees and by the Ministry. Indeed, two answers given by the right hon. Gentleman's Director of Accounts really, I think, establishes the position. That gentleman was asked, in Question 474:
In paragraph six reference is made to some contribution which is not given in detail. 'Have we any information as to what the size of that contribution is?'
The answer was:
I think that sort of thing will be reflected in the figures which I have promised earlier this morning to submit to the sub-Committee.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to mark these words:
The income and expenditure account figures do include all these internal transfers, although the Ministry cash figures do not.
We are dealing here in the Supplementary Estimates entirely with cash figures, and it is an explanation of the deficiency in these cash figures that we require from the right hon. Gentleman. The next question goes on:
In other words, can we take it that, if gang labour is provided and if machinery is hired to the land that is being farmed in this way, a charge is being made for it?
The answer that was given is this:
A charge is certainly being made, but we did agree in the quite early days of the war with the Treasury Officer of Accounts that in the Ministry accounts we would not give effect to these very voluminous transfers. Their effect would be to inflate both sides of the Exchquer account by several million pounds. They are given effect to in the books of the committees, and they will be reflected in the income and expenditure account. Therefore, gang labour or machinery hired by land in possession will be shown as expenditure on lands in possession and as income for the other Departments.
I have quoted these passages to show that the confusion and unco-ordinated accounts to which attention was drawn

relate to the internal accounts of the county committees and do not relate to the cash accounts. In regard to the cash accounts, it is interesting to observe that the same gentleman, the Director of Finance of the Ministry of Agriculture, stated that the Ministry got cash accounts from the county committees monthly. If cash accounts were being received monthly, what is the explanation for the deficiency of over £2½ million in cash receipts? That could not appear overnight unless something very surprising happened. It should have been perceptible months ago that the cash receipts were less than had been anticipated, and if some items had been included as cash receipts which were not cash receipts. No hint or indication of any such state of affairs was given to the Select Committee.
This particular Supplementary Estimate indicates to some extent that the picture presented to that Select Committee was more favourable than the reality so far as finance was concerned. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it would be very wrong if Select Committees of this House, and the Estimates Committee in particular, were misled as to the financial position. Therefore, we desire to take this opportunity to invite the right hon. Gentleman to give a clear and full explanation of these deficiencies; indeed, we feel that it is really necessary that he should do so.
I want to say a word or two about one other entry under the same Subhead of the Estimates—
Lands in possession, including farming operations—anticipated surplus.
An anticipated surplus looks much nicer than an anticipated deficiency, but how does this anticipated surplus come about? It is not very good estimating either way if the estimate of what the surplus will be is £1 million out and the estimate of what the deficiency will be is over £2½ million out. How does this arise? Is it because certain crops held by the county committees were sold after the end of the financial year and come, therefore, into this year? Were these crops primarily potatoes, and were these potatoes sold at prices subsidised by the Ministry of Food? I should be interested if the right hon. Gentleman would answer these three questions.
I will conclude by reminding the right hon. Gentleman that his Ministry stated they were glad to have an opportunity of making it clear that their aim was to make these gang labour services and machinery services completely self-supporting as soon as possible. The right hon. Gentleman said the same thing in the Debate in the House on 8th December. With regard to the gang labour services, he said:
I am anxious that all avoidable losses should be avoided, and our aim has been to reduce the net loss to a minimum.
In regard to the machinery services, he said:
Machinery surpluses are being steadily reduced, and every possible step is being taken to improve efficiency and economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2197–2200.]
We now have the Supplementary Estimates before us, showing anticipated deficiencies both for gang labour and for machinery totalling £2,570,000. I regret that I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman at present upon the result that so far has attended his efforts as indicated in that Debate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now give us an explanation for these extremely curious and very disappointing figures.

8.28 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said in the course of his remarks, after making one or two quotations, that he finds it difficult to reach a conclusion. No one will evince surprise that the hon. and learned Member finds it difficult to reach a conclusion. It would be inconsistent with his profession to reach conclusions too early. I think that this is perhaps one of those occasions when a conclusion was not sought for very keenly.
The hon. and learned Member has quoted from the Minutes of the Select Committee. By this time I should have thought that it was unnecessary for him to quote them and that he would have had them off by heart in view of the number of times he has quoted the evidence of that Committee.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give one occasion on which I have referred to the evidence of that Committee in the House?

Mr. Williams: I hardly think there is sufficient time to go into details.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman treats it as a laughing matter. May I tell him that on no occasion have I said anything in the House on the Report of this Select Committee? The right hon. Gentleman is making this accusation, although he is doing it jovially, and saying something that is entirely incorrect.

Mr. Williams: The hon. and learned Member is so thin-skinned at being hurt.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I believe in accuracy.

Mr. Williams: And so do I. The hon and learned Member has been speaking for some 15 minutes asking questions about which he appears to know nothing at all, when he knows just as much about the situation as I do myself. If the hon. and learned Gentleman ties me down to truth let us both be truthful and we shall know where we stand.
This is a very serious proposition and I readily appreciate it. Looking at page 53 there is ample justification for Members of the Opposition to ask appropriate questions as to what has brought about this deficiency. I make no complaints about it. My reference to the Select Committee was justified in the circumstances because we had not long since a full day's Debate on the Estimates and their content, when many questions were put and many answers given. And I think the Department for which am responsible at the moment received far less than justice from hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House on the matter of the content of this particular Select Committee Report.
The first thing to note about the figures on page 53 of this Supplementary Estimate is that they represent reductions in receipts and not additions to costs. Therefore, losses are not in question. The major part of the deficiency is due to the fact that the labour and machinery departments are not reimbursed in cash for services rendered to other departments of the Committee such as lands in possession. In the original Estimate credit was wrongly taken—it is admitted at once—under sub-head Z for the value of such services. Their value will, of course, be taken into account in the


trading accounts of the Committee relating to such subjects as lands in possession, but should not have been taken into account for cash estimate purposes.
This sum does not represent additional losses, if that be the right word—I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will listen to the reply—but is on gang labour and machinery services. It is true to say that if these cash payments had been made, there would have been a deficiency of the same figure on the Committee's account. That does not imply a loss at all, or any addition to the figure previously mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the proper document—

Mr. Turton: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear if this mistake occurred only in this year 1949–50 and not in the previous years 1947–48 and 1948–49?

Mr. Williams: As the hon. Gentleman knows, accounts for executive committees have only been built up over the last two or three years, but accounts this year are identical with what they were in previous years. There is no change whatsoever. The proper—

Mr. Turton: That is not quite a clear:answer. The Minister is addressing him-self to a mistake of £21 million, and I am asking this question—did that same accounting system prevail in the previous accounting year, 1948–49?

Mr. Williams: Yes, in each previous year the same accountancy was used.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: And the same mistake was made?

Mr. Williams: Yes, if the hon. and learned Gentleman likes, but that does not turn a paper figure into a loss.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman uses the word "loss." I used it perhaps inaccurately, but it is a loss to the country of £2½ million, is it not?

Mr. Williams: The hon. and learned Gentleman is still not reaching the right conclusion. It is not an extra cost to the State at all. I have said that if one department of a county executive committee paid another department in cash for services rendered, then the deficiency in receipts will not occur, but the committee

itself would have an all-over deficit of the same amount. The proper document on which to consider the result of farming operations will be the trading account which will be prepared and published after the end of the financial year. Quite simply, therefore, but unfortunately, the original Estimate of appropriations-in-aid was set too high and the estimate for food production services was set too low. That is always possible when the Estimates have to be prepared 18 months in advance.
What has been said so far deals with approximately £2 million out of the £2,570,000. The balance of £570,000 is made up of £270,000 for gang labour and £300,000 for machinery operations. These are reductions in receipts and not increases in expenditure. They are due to the fact that both services are reducing at a faster rate than could have been foreseen 18 months ago when the Estimates were originally prepared. Obviously if services are reduced the receipts for supplying them are also automatically reduced. Also, the cost of supplying the services is reduced. That fact is not apparent from the printed Supplementary Estimate, which fully justifies the hon. and learned Gentleman raising the point.
If hon. Gentlemen will look at sub-head (c), on page 52, they will see there an anticipated saving of £300,000 on county agricultural executive committee expenditure. That sum is the balance in savings and excesses in various departments. Among them are £190,000 for gang labour and £270,000 for machinery. The general effect, leaving out of account the £2 million already referred to, is that gang labour receipts for the year now closing are going down by £270,000 and expenditure by £190,000, compared with the original Estimate. The main reason why expenditure went down less than receipts by approximately £80,000 was due to the extra cost in transporting pool labour to the various farms, the rising costs of hostels and one or two other matters affecting the Women's Land Army and so forth. It will be clear to hon. Gentlemen that as the gang labour force diminishes the hostels become more costly until some of them can be concertinaed, and some of them closed down.
Hon. Gentlemen will see at a glance how difficult it is to estimate 18 months ahead when this has happened since 1948.


We then had 54,000 in the gang labour pool but they have already been reduced to 19,000. They are being reduced still further. So far, that explanation clearly indicates that there has been no extra expenditure by the State, and certainly no extra losses on gang labour or machinery, except the inevitable loss when we are reducing a service and our hostels are only half or one-third occupied, until some of them can be closed.
The same story can be told with regard to machinery operations. Here there are reductions in receipts of £300,000 and a saving in expenditure of £270,000, which is not a big difference. The explanation is very simple, merely a reduction in machinery operations. All the savings are slightly behind reductions in receipts. Again, that indicates that while the county executive committees are persuading farmers or contractors wherever they will fill the breach to do all the work they possibly can with their own machines or contractors' machines, county executive committees are left with such machinery as they retain—by the end of this year I anticipate that it will be less than 50 per cent. of what it was in 1948—and they will have all the difficult jobs to do which nobody else would undertake, and that work would not be done but for the county agricultural machinery.
Hon. Members may like to know that both with regard to gang labour and machinery operations there has been a steady increase in efficiency over the past few years. In the case of gang labour, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred so frequently in his references to the Report of the Select Committee, the percentage of wages recovered in 1946–47 was only 59. In the first three quarters of 1949–50 the recovery has reached 91 per cent., which indicates that the county executive committees have not only been very rapidly reducing their pool labour but have also been increasing the efficiency of the use of that labour. I repeat that by the end of 1950 we expect that machinery will be down to approximately 50 per cent. of what it was in 1948.
I believe that both gang labour and the machinery service played a very useful part in our expansion programme. If one cares to look at any part of the country it is obvious that, had it not been for the gang labour and the machinery service, we could not have achieved what has been achieved over the last few years.

The last time we discussed the eleventh Report of the Select Committee I said that nobody ever expected that the machinery service would be a paying proposition. After all, each county executive committee turned itself into a training department, a placing department and a social service at the same time, and I believe that when hon. Members reflect upon the sort of men we had to take into our service they are bound to agree that in the circumstances a really decent job of work has been done. I believe that both services have played a very useful part in the expansion programme.
I hope that the Committee will be satisfied with the explanation that I have given, that no extra loss or cost to the State is involved in this Supplementary Estimate but that it is merely a question of cash receipts for services rendered not having been paid from one part of a county executive committee to another. There is only one other word I ought to say and that is with regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's reference to the sale of surplus machinery. The answer to that is that surplus machinery is not treated at all as appropriations in aid but as Exchequer extra receipts. They will, therefore, form an item in some future balance sheet which gives the Treasury full credit for any income received from the sale of surplus machinery.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, would he deal with my question regarding lands in possession?

Mr. Williams: Yes, I am sorry I missed that. The £1 million surplus referred to on page 53 is, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, a carry-over of crops and potatoes from a previous year, and they were largely potatoes. I do not know that the Ministry of Food subsidise these potatoes any more than they subsidise any other potatoes produced in the country.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Turton: If I were to be charged with a serious crime of which I was guilty, I could choose nobody better than the Minister of Agriculture to prosecute or to present my case. Hon. Members listening to him would fail to realise that the Minister was coming down to the House to say, "I


want another £2 million because I made a mistake in accounting." That is really what it comes to, although he said, "It is not a greater loss, it is merely a deficiency in my receipts."
As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he presented to the country and the nation a statement saying that he would obtain from farmers some £2 million for farming operations which in fact he did not expect to get at all but was Merely to credit from his own lands in possession. In other words he was going to transfer £2 million of money from his right-hand trouser pocket to his left-hand trouser pocket and was calling that a receipt. That is a grave admission of bad financial administration from a Minister of Agriculture. After all, the chief claim of the Minister of Agriculture to fame is not finance but knowledge of farming, and what surprises me in this Debate is that there is on the Government Front Bench no responsible representative of the Treasury who is equally to blame with the Minister for what is a gross financial muddle.

Mr. Williams: No blame and no muddle.

Mr. Turton: The Minister says there is no blame and no muddle. Perhaps he has convinced himself, but if he comes to the House of Commons and asks for another £2 million he must have made some mistake. When I asked him whether this was a mistake in only one year he said, no, that his Department had been carrying on this mistake for a number of years.
I have in my hands a document published only last week, the Appropriation Accounts which is signed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I imagine the Minister will agree that the Comptroller and Auditor-General knows the difference between a notional receipt and an actual receipt. The Comptroller and Auditor-General in going through these accounts for the previous year 1948–49, makes it quite clear that the amounts actually received were what had been passed in the Estimates. They were £13,883,516 for gang labour and £6,592,503 for the expenditure on machinery operations, and the receipts for machinery and gang labour amounted to £16 million odd. It is clear from that review that if the Minister is right that he has been carrying on this system of

false accounting for a number of years, he has successfully deceived not only the House and the country but also the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
I hope that on reflection the Minister will see that this mistake is a mistake not quite so careless as he represented it to the House, that it is a mistake which occurred only this year. This was made fairly clear when his Director of Accounts was addressing the Estimates Committee and was talking about how they dealt with this problem which arose when their gang labour and machinery was used for lands in possession. The Director of Accounts, in answer to a question by Mr. Scott-Elliot, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has referred, said, at paragraph 475 on page 50 of the Report:
… we did agree in the quite early days of the war with the Treasury Officer of Accounts that in the Ministry accounts we would not give effect to these very voluminous transfers—
he was talking of the expenditure on lands in possession.
Their effect would be to inflate both sides of the Exchequer account by several million pounds. They are given effect to in the books of the committees, and they will be reflected in these income and expenditure accounts. Therefore gang labour or machinery hired by land in possession will be shown as expenditure on lands in possession and as income for the other departments.
As there was that Treasury ruling, surely the Minister will now agree that this is the first year when they have disobeyed it.

Mr. T. Williams: indicated dissent.

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman is making his own crime and that of his Ministry so much graver. Not only have they this year presented a completely false position to the country and pretended that they were receiving money which they never received, but they had done it in previous years contrary to the express ruling of the Treasury; and when a responsible Select Committee of this House examined their Director of Accounts, this gentleman told the Estimates Committee that that was the position and that that was the Treasury Ruling.
What the Minister has done has not been to inflate both sides—the lands in possession and the gang labour and machinery receipts. What he has done has been to inflate the gang labour and


machinery receipts and to leave them out from the lands in possession expenditure, which is really a very grave misleading of the country. What were the Treasury doing in all this matter? Do they not have some responsibility?
When the Estimates Committee were examining these accounts—this is purely an accounting problem—they sat, if I remember aright, from November, 1948, until 26th May, 1949, taking evidence on these very matters. As one who was a member of the Estimates Committee, I feel tonight some degree of responsibility because I did not find out during those proceedings that the Minister was conducting this very negligent system of finance. I think we ought to have found it out. True, every witness from the Ministry covered it up and said they were not doing this, but it was there really latent for everybody to see, that there was something very phoney about what the Minister was claiming would be his receipts, because he had put his receipts at too high a figure. Surely, the Treasury ought to have done something about this?
From annex 8 on page 272 of the Report, dealing with agriculture machinery, we learn from paragraph 5—this is the Minister's own Memorandum to the Select Committee of Estimates—that
Income for 1949–50 was estimated at £3,650,000. This is practically the same as the previous year's estimate but was based on …
certain assumptions. If I am right, and if the estimate for the previous year was not a false estimate but was a true estimate, as the Comptroller and Auditor-General has certified in his certificate published last week, then surely the Minister was quite wrong to take that estimate of the previous year and to build it up, when he knew that the machinery operations, as he told us today, were declining very rapidly; whereas he put the figure at the previous year's estimate. This goes on:
The question of the machinery service has been further reviewed by the Treasury since these estimates were made and the total estimated receipts have now been increased by a further £150,000 to a total of £3,800,000.
I ask whoever is to reply to the Debate how it was that the Treasury were enabled to review these Estimates, which are admitted now to be contrary to the whole Treasury ruling and are admitted to be phoney estimated receipts, why the

Treasury were allowed to increase them by a further £150,000.

Mr. S. O. Davies: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, while the subject matter is under consideration, to refer to and to enlarge upon imaginary defections on the part of the Treasury?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Certainly, if it has relation to the particular Estimate before the House.

Mr. Turton: I did not talk about the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If I should do that, and I agree that that is probably the right way of doing it, I ask, how is it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his responsibility, did not become aware in that review that there was this error of £1 million that the Minister has admitted today in his machinery estimates? I believe this to be not a party matter. It is purely a question of financial control and ministerial responsibility for finance. I think many hon. Members on both sides of the House who took part in examining the Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture share my view that there was something very wrong about the presentation of finance of the trading services. It is a new problem for Ministers and for Parliament when we have a Department that is indulging in trading operations and sometimes selling its services to the ordinary citizens of the land and sometimes carrying out operations for another branch of the same Department.
We realised that in our Committee's Report and said that in our view the Ministry's accounts were muddled and confused and we recommended to the Minister that he should take certain action. It was on these lines, that he should prepare trading estimate and a capital estimate. We recommended that those estimates should in future be prepared in a different way, so that the receipts and expenditure for each service should be set side by side in order that taxpayers and we who represent taxpayers should know exactly what was happening in each of these trading services. May I remind the Minister that in his Departmental replies to that recommendation he said:
It is impossible, without imposing a wholly disproportionate amount of additional work on Committees, who analyse the cash receipts and certain substantial cash payments under the various trading services.


When I read that it seemed to me to be an admission that there was something very wrong in the accounts Department of the Ministry of Agriculture if they were not able without a disproportionate amount of additional work to analyse what were the cash receipts. It is a pity this work was not undertaken a little earlier because if it had been undertaken the Minister would have found earlier on that £2 million of the cash receipts in the estimates were not cash receipts at all but merely this transfer from his right hand trouser pocket to his left hand trouser pocket.
I would seriously suggest to the Minister that he reads again the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates on how he should present and keep his accounts to Parliament. We have not a responsible Minister of the Treasury here today on the Government Front Bench. I ask that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer should go into this matter with the Minister of Agriculture and see how these mistakes can be prevented in the future.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that no question of loss is incurred in this matter. If he takes his machinery services he will find that he had paid out some £1,700,000 more than he has received, and his percentage of recovery on the machinery services this year is 60 per cent.

Mr. T. Williams: That is not true.

Mr. Turton: I am the last person to want to mislead the House. If the Minister says that what I have said is not true will he let us have the correct percentage, for he will find that the estimate of receipts is now £1,700,000 less—

Mr. Williams: Shall I correct the hon. Member before he goes any further? He says that the collection for machinery services is 60 per cent. this year. It is 78 per cent. It is true that the hon. Member is only 18 per cent. wrong, but the percentage is 78.

Mr. Turton: I ask the Minister a simple question. I said the estimate of the receipts is at present £1,700,000 less than the estimate of expenditure. These are the figures which he himself has presented to the House in his Estimates. In

other words, the gross expenditure on machinery is £4,300,000 and the gross estimated receipts, as now revised by this Supplementary Estimate, are £2,600,000. If the right hon. Gentleman will then do that sum he will find that the percentage recovered is 60. I know on what basis the Minister is now working. He is still labouring under the delusion about transfers from his right to the left pocket. He thinks that what he has removed from the right to the left pocket is a receipt and it is not. The percentage recovered is 60. The Minister told the House, and his witnesses before the Select Committee on Estimates told that Committee, that the percentage recovered in 1949–50 was the best percentage the Department had ever had. In fact it is the worst in any time on record if these figures are correct.
Surely this is a matter upon which we must have some clear indication that this House and this country will not be misled on these matters as they have been in the past year, as I say, and in the past three years, as the Minister says. We are representatives of the taxpayers of this country—

Mr. Murray: Hear, hear.

Mr. Turton: It is all very well for the hon. Member to come into the Chamber after having had his dinner and begin interjecting in a hilarious way. This is a matter of £2 million of the taxpayers' money which is admitted to have been wasted. It is a very serious matter that nearly £2 million is to be claimed from the taxpayers of the country because the Minister has no financial control of his Department. I beg the Minister of Agriculture and the Treasury to go into this matter so that in future these mistakes do not occur, that a better system is devised of presenting these trading estimates to Parliament so that earlier in the year we shall know what the loss really is.

9.5 p.m.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: The House owes a great debt of gratitude to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—who were both members of this Select Committee who published the 11th Report in


the summer of last year, for raising this particular point this evening. It is interesting to hear the jeers from hon. Members on the other side of the House when I make those remarks, because above all else it is the function of this House to safeguard public finance from Executive misspending. It is one of the chief functions of hon. Members of this House.
The Minister has contradicted himself in making a reply to my hon. Friend, because in his defence of this very extraordinary state of affairs revealed in this Supplementary Estimate he said that this was a very serious question. Later on when my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton was speaking, the Minister said there was no blame or muddle attached to anybody. Both of those statements cannot be right, and I think that the Minister was probably correct when he said that this is a very serious question.
It is not for me to go into the merits or demerits either of the gang labour service or the machinery service; indeed I do not believe it would be in order to do so on this particular Vote. But I would ask the Minister to explain this to the House: If, as he says, there is no money attached to this particular deficit and to this particular Supplementary Estimate, why does it appear in this document—passed by the Chancellor, and produced to the House—as an addition to the other Supplementary Estimates to the tune of £1,650,000 under sub-head Z?—because that is money required.
In his reply to my hon. Friend the Minister said we could not really understand this problem until the end of the financial year when we got the trading accounts. Is it true to say that what has happened is that he has taken a Supplementary Estimate for the year 1949–50, and then it is credited back to his Department after the end of the financial year as a credit in the trading accounts which are published some time next month? If that is the case, again I think the House will agree that the whole position could not be more unsatisfactory.
We had a Debate at the end of last year on 8th December, which was not, as the Minister has stated, a long Debate. It was quite short, and many hon. Members were unable to take part in it. But it was a Debate on the whole of this 11th Report. What emerged from it was

the fact that the present method of accounting for these trading services was unsatisfactory. There again, we have an instance of this in these particular Supplementary Estimates, and if my hon. Friend had not seen fit to draw the attention of the House to this Debate it would not go out to the country that, in fact, the Minister had lost over £2½ million in these two particular services for which he is responsible, namely the gang labour service and the machinery service.
Because we have had this Debate the House has been able to reassure itself that the Minister is taking something front one pocket and putting it into the other; but that does not make the position any more satisfactory. I ask the Minister to assure the House that we will not have any more of this business in the next financial year. Accountancy plays, a very important part in any Minister's life. When these enormous sums are being spent from public funds by his Department, and by every other Department, then it must be right that we should have a proper system of accountancy. I took the liberty in the last discussion on this point to suggest to the House that we shall never get a true picture and understand what is going on until we can have the accounts of the county committees published county by county. I still feel that that is the proper solution, and that when the Minister has decided to do that we shall not have to debate intricate points of detail about accounts which have been proved to be so unsatisfactory.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not think that there is much to reply to unless I repeat what I said earlier. I should like, however, to say a few words about the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Sir T. Dugdale). They claim to be wholehearted supporters of county agricultural executive committees and the work which they are doing, but they never lose an opportunity of making an indirect attack upon them. This is one more occasion where they have taken the opportunity of this Supplementary Estimate to make back-handed attacks upon the county executive committees and their work.

Sir T. Dugdale: rose—

Mr. Williams: One moment. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton uses these words when referring to the county executive committee accounts, "They are false; they are deceiving the nation; they are misleading, and they are negligent" and perhaps one or two other—

Mr. Turton: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would repeat what I said instead of something which is entirely untrue. I said that the Minister's accounts were untrue and false, but I never said that the county executive committee's were, because those are not cash accounts. That shows the Minister's complete ignorance of the whole system of accountancy.

Mr. Williams: I am delighted to have such a wonderful teacher as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton to get me out of my ignorance; but he must pass the first standard in accountancy himself before he can become a teacher. I should like to remind him once again that he was a member of the Select Committee which issued the 11th Report and that he, like the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), is able to quote from that Committee. The hon. Gentleman said that these accounts were false; that they were deceiving the nation; that they were misleading and negligent. The hon. Baronet referred again to this loss. He cannot have understood or listened to a word that I said, or he could not use the word "loss" since there is not the loss of one single penny shown in this Estimate.
I hate to repeat myself, but I must say once again that if the county agricultural executive committees who run the gang labour service and the machinery service charged and received cash payments for services rendered, this Estimate in this form would not have been necessary. I said earlier that if a cash payment had been made for services rendered, this Supplementary Estimate would not have been necessary in this form, but a similar Supplementary Estimate would have had to be provided for the work of food production. I made that very plain. Therefore, there is no dodging, no misleading, no deception and there is no loss. Whatever else may have been said by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, the hon. Baronet and the hon. and learned Gentleman, they cannot prove that this Estimate means the payment of one single penny

piece for gang labour or for machinery services.

Mr. Manniagham-Buller: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's rather difficult and confusing argument. Is he saying that we really need not worry about this Supplementary Estimate, because, if there had not been a deficiency on gang labour or machinery, there would have been a greater deficiency on land in possession? Is he saying that, in that event, there would have been a Supplementary Estimate asking for another net figure of £1,650,000 from the taxpayers? If this is the effect of his conduct of these operations, is it not the fact that the Estimates must have been wrong, and that, whether the Minister calls it a loss or not, the taxpayer is being asked for much more money that was anticipated?

Mr. Williams: I happen to have been in this House much longer than the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have sat in Opposition for 18 years when a Conservative Government was in power. I have heard every Supplementary Estimate, year in and year out, produced by Conservative Ministers, and, if the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton comes over to this side for a short time, I tremble to think what sort of Estimates he would produce, when he has to provide Estimates 18 months before the end of the financial year. Every hon. Member who has spoken in the Debate knows full well that, if a county executive committee, with its internal trading arrangements, has to produce estimates 18 months in advance, they cannot be expected to be accurate. Hon. Members are asking for what is impossible.
I only need to say this to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, the hon. Baronet and the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is perfectly proper for hon. Members of the Opposition, or indeed hon. Members in any part of the House, to raise questions on Supplemetary Estimates and to seek information upon them when they have been submitted, but I doubt if it is either fair or reasonable to characterise a Supplementary Estimate as "false," "deceptive," "misleading," "negligent" and all the other adjectives that have been hurled across the Floor of the House.
The county committees are doing a good job of work, but there were no such


things as accounts during the war when the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) was the Minister. I do not remember the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, the hon. Baronet or the hon. and learned Gentleman asking one single question about the expense to the taxpayer in those days. It is only recently, since they sat on the Select Committee which issued this 11th Report, that they have discovered that the accountancy may not be quite what it ought to be.
I said that credit had been taken wrongly for receipts for labour services and machinery services. I admitted that in the first minute of my earlier observations. Why that was not enough for hon. Members Opposite I do not understand, but I hope I have made it very clear and that the explanation I have given is now satisfactory.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of the plea of "guilty" which the right hon. Gentleman has entered, and having regard to the fact that he has held out some hope or indication that he is not intending to repeat the offence, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Resolution reported:

CIVIL (EXCESS), 1948–49

"That a sum, not exceeding £611 1s. 5d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good an excess on the grant for Osborne for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1949."

[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 2301.]

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS REPORT [23rd March]

Resolutions reported:
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on 31st day of March, 1949, the sum of £611 1s. 5d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on 31st day of March, 1950, the sum of £148,402,375 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on 31st day of March, 1951, the sum of £1,246,213,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolutions agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Douglas Jay.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-nine, one thousand nine hundred and fifty and one thousand nine hundred and fifty-one"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 4.]

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES ORDERS

Resolved:
That the Import Duties (Consolidation) Order, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 2355), dated 16th December, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, 1949 in the last Parliament, be approved.
That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (NO: 4) Order, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 2354), dated 16th December, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, 1949, in the last Parliament, be approved."—[Mr. Douglas Jay.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes past Nine o'Clock.